RAILWAY   GAUGES 


-♦»»■ 


SEYMOUR. 


A  EEVIEW 


OF  THE 


THEORY  OF  NARROW  GAUGES 


AS    APPLIED    TO 


mm  TRUNK  LINES  OF  RAILWAY 


By   SILAS  SKYMOUR, 

-  -    C." 

GENKRAL    CONSULTlNa    ENOINKKH. 


NEW  YORK: 
D.  VAN   NOSTRAND,   PUBLISHER, 

33  MURKAY  AMD    .7  WaRRKX  SJTKKKT 

1871. 


Entered  according  to  Act  of  Congres*,  in  the  year  1871,  by 

SILAS    SEYMOUR, 

io   the  office  of  the   Librarian   of  CongreM  at  Wasbingtun. 


RAILWAY  GAUGES. 


LETTER  FBOU  KB.  HABSEALL  0.  BOBEBTS. 


Texas  Pacific  Railroad  Company, 
Office,  corner  "Warren  and  West  Streets, 
New  York,  Sept.  23,  1871. 

Hon.  Silas  Seymour, 

20  Nassau  street^  Xeio  York. 

My  Dear  Sir, — I  have  the  honor  to  send  you  here- 
wi;.h,  the  report  of  our  Chief  Engineer,  General  Buell,  on 
the  subject  of  narrow  gauges,  which  is  of  deep  interest  to 
me  as  the  President  of  the  Texas  Pacific  Railroad,  a  great 
trunk  line. 

Before  deciding  so  inoportant  a  matter  as  the  adoption 
of  a  gauge  for  our  road,  I  feel  the  necessity  of  obtaining 
all  the  information  that  can  possibly  be  procured  on  this 
subject ;  and  knowing  your  great  experience  whilst  acting 
as  State  Engineer  of  New  York,  as  Chief  Engineer  of  the 
N.  Y.  and  Erie   Ruilroad,  and  other  prosperous  enter- 


4  RAILWAY  GAUGES. 

prises,  ami  as  Consulting  Engineer  of  the  Union  Pacific 
llailroa«l,  I  am  induced  to  solicit  your  written  oi)inion,  as 
to  whether  a  first-class  raih'oad,  of  equal  speed,  comfort  to 
I)assengers,  and  capacity  for  freiglit,  with  tliose  possessed 
hy  the  gauges  now  in  general  use,  can  be  built  upon  a 
narrow  gauge  ;  and  if  so,  what  gauge  would  you  recom- 
mend ? 

J5y  giving  me  your  views,  at  your  earliest  convenience, 
yuu  will  confer  a  great  favor  on, 

Yours  very  truly, 

Marshall  0.  Roberts. 


A    REVIEW 


OF    THE 


NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY 


ME.  SEYMOUR'S  REPLY. 


Xo.  20  Nass-vc  Sthkkt. 
Nl-w  York,  Oct.  IQth,  1871. 

Dear  Sir. — ITav'uisr  recoivetl  vour  coiiimunicati«>n  of  the 
23d  ultimo,  and  the  a:eouipanying  re}>urt  of  your  Chief 
Engineer,  during  a  somewhat  protracted  stay  in  Cana<la.  I 
have  taken  the  Ubertv  of  deferrinff  an  answer  until  niv 
return  to  mv  olfice  in  this  eitv. 

I  have  read  with  some  care  the  re[»ort  of  your  Chief 
Engineer,  General  G.  P.  Buell.  in  which  he  recommends 
you  to  adopt  a  gauge  of  3  ft.  6  inches  in  preference  to 
the  4  ft.  83  inch,  or  the  3  ft.  gauge,  for  the  Texas  Pacific 
Railroad,  extending  from  the  Mississippi  A'alley  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  a  distance  of  about  1,500  miles. 

The  confidence  and  earnestness  with  which  vour  Chief 
Engineer  presents  his  views  and  urges  his  recommenda- 
tions upon  this  important  subject,  show,  beyond  a  doubt. 


O  A  REVIEW  OF  TOE  NARBOW  OAUOE  THEORY. 

that  he  is  entirely  honest  in  his  convictions  ;  and  they  are 
therefore  entitled  to  full  and  fair  consideration. 

He  admits,  in  his  report,  that  your  road  will  necessarily 
come  in  competition  with  two  other  grand  trunk  lines  to 
the  Pacific.  And  he  claims  that  it  "  already  has  advan- 
tage of  the  other  routes  in  climate,  distance,  and  economy 
of  construction."  He  also  claims  that  *•  the  whole  subject 
hinges  on  the  three  points — speed  (which  is  time),  ca- 
pacity, and  economy:"  and  that  these  three  points  are 
secured  by  the  adoption  of  a  gauge  1  foot  2h  inches 
narrower  than  the  gauge  of  the  two  other  grand  com- 
peting lines  -,  and  which  has  been  in  general  and  success- 
ful use  throughout  the  civilized  world,  djring  the  past  half 
century. 

The  five  following  reasons  are  given  for  recommending 
the  3  ft.  6  in.  gauge,  in  preference  to  the  one  of  4  ft.  83 
inches : — 

^^  First. — That  in  the  construction  of  the  road-bed, 
etc.,  the  difference  will  be  30  per  cent,  of  cost  of  narrow 
gauge. 

'^Second. — That  in  the  construction  of  the  superstruc- 
ture the  difference  will  be  45  per  cent,  of  cost  of  narrow 
gauge. 

"  Third. — That,  with  proper  construction  of  rolling 
stock,  a  speed  of  35  to  45  miles  per  hour  can  be  attained 
with  perfect  safety. 

"  Fourth. — ^That  in  the  construction  of  rolling  stock  the 
difference  will  be  50  to  55  per  cent,  of  cost  of  narrow 
gauge. 


A  RETIEW  OF  TH£  NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY.  7 

"  Flflh — That  in  the  loaded  trains  of  mixed  freights  and 
cars,  on  the  3  ft.  G  in.  gauge,  the  percentage  of  dead  weiirht 
to  load  will  be  about  jVir  >  while  in  the  similar  train  on 
the  broad  gauge  road,  the  percentage  of  dead  weight  to 
load  is  about  jVo*" 

I  cannot  concur  with  your  Chief  Engineer,  either  in  the 
premises  which  he  assumes,  or  in  the  conclusions  at  which 
he  arrives.  Although  I  will  admit,  that,  assuming  every- 
thing else  to  be  only  equal,  if  either  one  of  the  reasons 
which  he  gives  can  be  satisfactorily  proven  true,  he  will 
have  gained  his  case. 

The  great  difficulty,  however,  will  be  found  to  rest  in 
obtaining  this  satisfactory  proof.  Take,  for  example,  the 
construction  of  the  road-bed.  I  should  want  to  see  two 
parallel  lines  of  equal  length,  and  running  over  precisely 
similar  ground,  constructed,  one  for  the  wide,  and  the  other 
for  the  narrow  gauge,  having  equal  margins  for  right  of 
way,  drainage,  slopes,  bermes,  etc.;  and  then  the  difference 
in  cost  could  be  correctly  ascertained.  But.  in  the  absence 
of  such  a  test,  I  cannot  admit  that  there  is  anything  like 
the  difference  claimed  for  this  one  item,  in  favor  of  the 
narrow  gauge. 

But  as  this  test  never  has,  and  probably  never  will  be 
made,  it  only  remains  to  show,  by  indirect  or  negative 
demonstration,  that  the  proposition  cannot  be  true. 

If  I  understand  the  proposition  (which  is  stated  some- 
what ingeniously),  it  is,  that  if  thenarro>-  gauge  road-bed 
costs  $10,000  per  mile,  the  wide  one  will  cost  $13,000. 
the  difference  being  -j^,  or  about  23  per  cent. 

Perhaps  I  cannot  illustrate  my  idea  of  the  error  better, 

li 


8  A  REVIEW  OF  THE  XABBOW  GAUGE  THEOBY. 

than  by  assuming  an  average  mile  of  grading,  masonry, 
etc.,  to  be  fully  completed,  and  ready  for  the  superstruc- 
ture of  the  wide  gauge  ;  and  then,  by  assuming  that  a 
longitudinal  section,  extending  the  entire  length,  and  one 
foot  two  and  a  half  inches  in  width,  be  taken  out  of  the 
centre,  and  the  sides  brought  together  so  as  to  close  up 
the  vacant  space.  We  should  then  have  a  perfect  road-bed 
for  the  narrow  gauge  ;  and  the  question  to  be  determined 
would  be  the  relation  which  the  longitudinal  section,  so 
taken  out,  bears  to  the  road-ljed  as  left  complete  for  the 
narrow  gauge. 

The  side  slopes  of  excavations  and  embankments,  which 
often  contain  more  material  than  the  prism,  would,  of 
course,  remain  the  same.  The  side  drains,  bermes,  and 
the  wings,  end  walls,  and  coping  of  culverts,  would  also 
remain  the  same.  If  truss-bridging  occurs,  the  entire 
masonry  and  superstructure  of  this  would  remain  the  same 
for  both  gauges,  for  the  reason  that  the  width  of  bridges 
required  for  passing  cars  of  the  widest  gauge,  has  been 
found  none  too  great  to  allow  of  the  requisite  lateral  bra- 
cing to  keep  the  bridge  in  perfect  line  and  adjustment. 

The  road-bed  for  the  wide  gauge  is  generalh'  fourteen 
feet  in  width  at  grade,  but  I  assume  that  twelve  feet,  in 
good  material,  is  quite  ample.  By  taking  out  the  longi- 
tudinal section  referred  to,  there  would  remain  10  ft.  92 
inches  for  the  narrow  gauge  road-bed  ;  but  reducing  this 
width  to  ten  feet,  which,  I  presume,  would  be  consid- 
ered as  equally  ample,  and  the  actual  saving  in  the 
prism  would  be  only  one-sixth,  or  about  IG  percent. 
When  we   add   to   this  reduced   prism,  the   cost  of  the 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  NAKBOW  GAUGE  THEORY.  9 

other  dementi!,  which  remain  the  same  in  ioth  cases  : 
and  consider  that  the  shops,  station-houses,  platforms, 
etc.,  etc..  would  also  remain  substantially  the  same,  the 
actual  percentage  of  saving  in  total  cost  would  become  so 
small,  as  compared  with  the  amount  claimed  by  your  En- 
gineer, that  his  first  reason  for  recommendii.g  the  adoption 
of  the  narrow  gauge  loses  nearly  its  entire  force. 

By  the  same  process  of  reasoning,  the  second  and  fourth 
reasons  given  b\'  him,  in  which  he  claims  that  4-3  per  cent, 
will  be  saved  in  cost  of  superstructure,  and  from  50  to  55 
per  cent,  in  cost  of  rolling  stock,  may  be  shown  to  be 
equally  erroneous. 

The  saving  in  cost  of  superstructure,  the  weight  of  rails 
remaining  the  same,  will  be  oi.\v  the  value  of  a  section, 
1  ft.  22  in.  in  length,  cut  from  the  centre  of  each  t"c. 

The  requisite  weiglit  of  iron  rails  is  generally  .> .apposed 
to  be  governed  by  the  weight  resting  upon  each  driver  of 
the  engine:  and  as  this  weight  creates  the  adhesion,  and, 
therefore,  governs  the  power,  it  follows  that,  with  the  same 
weight  of  train,  it  must  be  equal  upon  both  gauges.  If  it 
is  claimed  that  the  same  amount  of  tonnage  can  be  hauled 
with  greater  economv.  bv  multiplvins  trains,  and  usins: 
lighter  engines,  then  I  maintain  that  the  same  principle  can 
be  applied  upon  the  wider  gauge  with  equal  economy  : 
and,  therefore,  that  no  greater  weight  of  rails  is  required. 

The  savins  in  the  cost  of  each  car  will  be  onlv  the  value 

* • 

of  a  longitudinal  section  of  1  ft.  22  in.  taken  from  the 
centre  of  the  car,  embracing  only  the  top.  bottom,  and 
two  ends  of  the  bodv,  and  the  truck  frames,  and  axles 
below — and.  perhaps,  a  still  further  trifling  deduction  on 


10         A  RETIEW  OF  THE  NARROW  GAUGE  THEORT. 

account  of  the  value  of  materials  and  labor  claimed  to  be 
saved  in  the  construction  of  cars  of  the  propose<^l  diminu- 
tive width  ;  but  I  claim  that  the  additional  number  of  cars 
required  to  transport  the  same  amount  of  tonnage,  or 
number  of  passengers,  will  make  the  cost  quite  as  much, 
if  not  more,  for  the  narrow  than  for  the  wider  gauge. 

I  claim  also  that  the  cost  of  locomotives,  provided  the 
same  amount  of  power  is  used,  will  be  no  greater  for  the 
wide  than  for  the  narrow  gauge.  If  there  is  any  diflTer- 
ence.  it  would  certainly  be  in  favor  of  the  largest  engine. 

If  these  statements  are  correct,  and  I  have  no  doubt 
that  they  will  be  found  substantially  so,  there  can  be  no 
more  force  in  the  second  and  fourth  propositions  sub- 
mitted by  your  Chief  Engineer,  than  there  appears  to  be 
in  the  first. 

Having  had  some  experience  in  the  construction  and 
equipment  of  roads,  with  both  the  G  ft.  and  4  ft.  81  in. 
gauges,  the  diflference  in  which  is  slightly  greater  than  that 
of  the  two  gauges  now  under  discussion,  1  am  not  pre- 
pared to  say,  and  do  not  claim  that  there  is  actually  no 
difference  whatever  in  their  first  cost ;  but  I  do  say  most 
emphatically  that  this  difference  is  very  largely,  although 
probably  inadvertently,  overstated  by  the  advocates  of 
this  extreme  narrow  gauge  theory. 

When,  in  1847,  this  matter  was  under  discussion  before 
the  Xew  York  &  Erie  Railroad  Company,  with  reference 
to  the  proposed  change  of  gauge  from  6  ft  to  4  ft  8i 
inches,  I  know  that  this  item,  of  first  cost  of  construction 
and  equipment, did  not  enter  very  largly  into  the  argument ; 
and  my  recollection  is,  that  it  was  conceded  by  the  respec- 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY.         11 

tire  advocates  of  each  gauge,  that  it  could  not  be  less  than 
five,  nor  more  than  ten,  per  cent,  in  favor  of  the  narrow 
gauge. 

The  third  reason  given  by  your  Chief  Enjrineer  seems 
to  have  verv  little,  if  any,  application  to  his  argument  in 
favor  of  the  narrow,  as  against  the  wide  gauge.  It  ^eems 
rather  to  be  introduced  for  the  purpose  of  showing,  or 
asserting,  that  a  train  upon  the  narrow  gauge  is  capa- 
ble of  attaining  as  high  a  rate  of  speed  as  is  reached 
upon  any  first-class  railroad.  In  putting  this  rate  of  speed 
at  **  35  to  4o  miles  per  hour  with  perfect  safety.  "  I  believe 
him  to  be  in  error,  because  I  do  not  think  that  such  a  rate 
of  speed  can  be  adopted  with  perfect  safety  upon  any  road, 
or  with  any  gause. 

With  the  track  in  perfect  adjustment,  and  cars  of  pro- 
portionate width  and  height,  I  see  no  reason  why  an  engine 
of  sufficient  power  will  not  haul  a  train  with  as  great 
speed  and  safety  upon  a  narrow,  as  upon  a  wide  gauge. 
Although  I  believe  it  is  generally  conceded  that,  in  the 
ordinary  Condition  of  our  roads  and  rolling  stock,  a  wide 
gauge  is  the  safest  for  high  rates  of  speed. 

The  fifth  and  last  reason  assi^jned  by  your  Chief  En- 
gineer.  is  really  the  great  argument  generally  advanced  by 
the  advocates  of  the  extreme  narrow  gauge  theory.  And 
yet  I  firmly  beheve  it  to  be  the  weakest,  and.  if  proper 
tests  could  be  applied,  the  most  easily  exploded,  of  any  of 
the  arguments  yet  advanced  in  its  favor. 

But  the  great  difficulty  here,  as  in  the  other  positions 
assumed  in  favor  of  this  theory,  is  to  apply  the  proper  test. 
If  we  could  have  two  parallel  roads  constructed,  of  equal 

,  / 


12  A  RETIEW   OF  THE  NARROW  GXUdT  THBOEI. 

l^Dgths,  gra<le3,  and  curves,  but  of  •litfrineiLJt  irauges;  and 
if  we  could  have  a  given  amount  of  pai.^S4^M^-er<K,  and  of  the 
saiii.?  kinds  of  freight,  to  transport  ryv^'rr  each,  within  a 
given  tiin3,  and  could  be  allow^^l  to«  tinr  ^xjjeriments,  as 
to  th?  most  economical  morle  of  ♦i*>iQt^  it,  the  problem 
could  verv  soon  be  solved  beyond  a  «|»i<e*tM*ia- 

Or.  if  any  main  trunk  line  had  been  in<>iifJtrucled  of  the 
gauge  reeommended  by  your  Chief  Eci^aj-e^er,  upon  which 
a  mixed  freight  and  passenger  tratS«r  h^d  %>e^u  carried  on 
during  a  series  of  years,  the  results*  of  \irtak'licouldbe  com- 
pared with  those  of  any  other  simlLw  line,  having  the 
ordinar}'  gauge,  and  doing  the  same  amoKjuuiat  and  kind  of 
business,  we  might  then  be  able  to  pr<>!T!une  *4ome  data  upon 
whioh  to  base  an  argument. 

But  as  we  have  neither  of  these  ex;Mflp]es  before  us, 
every  one  is  allowed  to  form  hi*  cwtim  <)»piiiions  from  his 
own  stand-point;  and  to  advocate thecsa  isi  ajjy  manner,  and 
for  any  purpose  he  pleases,  appareatij  without  any  fear  of 
su:cessful  contradiction. 

It  will  be  observed,  however,  thikii  iht  <eiitire  argument 
is  merel}'  speculative,  and  that  it  L*  lbta*eri  upon  pure  as- 
sumptions, instead  of  upon  fact.-*  a:*  uliey  are  known  to 
exist. 

Your  Chief  Engineer  assume,  a.*  Ms  fifth  and  last 
reason,  that  the  percentage  of  di^l  weight  to  load, 
chargeable  to  the  3  ft.  6  in.  gauge^,  if  3V¥5  ^^^  that  the 
same  item  chargeable  to  the  4  ft,  ^1  in-  gauge,  is  y^^^, 
making  a  difference  of  y^u  in  favtjr  «>f  tiie  narrow  gauge. 

In  another  place  he  {lssume^i.  tnat  tlie  percentage  of 
dead  to  Uve  weight  upon  the  4  tt.  Si  ki-  gauge,  is  100  ; 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY.         13 

upon  the  3  ft    6  in.  gauge,  48;  and  upon  the  3  ft.  gauge, 
5G. 

lie  also  says  :  "In  the  above  calculation  I  have  used 
for  the  4  ft.  85  in.  gauge,  the  box  car  now  in  uxe.  For  the 
3  ft.  6  in.  gauge,  tho  box  car  as  presented  in  this  i-e port.  For 
the  3  ft.  gauge,  the  box  car  as  constructed  at  the  AVihning- 
ton  Car  Works, /or  the  Denver  and  Uio  Grande  Railroad.'^ 
I  have  italicised  the  portions  of  the  above  quotation  to 
which  I  wish  to  call  particular  attention;  and  will  only 
add  the  remark,  that  ''the  box  car  now  in  use'^  has  been 
actually  and  thoroughly  tested  during  many  years,  and 
has  been  found  to  answer  the  purpose  admirably  well ; 
^^the  box  car  as  presented  in  this  report,"  exists  only  in 
theory  and  upon  paper  ;  and  ''the  box  car  as  constructed  for 
the  Denver  and  Uio  Grande  Railroad,"  if  really  constructed, 
has  never  been  used  suiHciently  to  test  either  its  strength 
or  durability. 

The  terminal  stations  of  the  New  York  Central,  and  the 
Erie  railways,  are  within  easy  reach  of  your  office.  The 
difference  between  their  respective  gauges  is  greater  than 
between  the  3  ft.  6  in.  and  the  4  ft.  82  in.  gauges.  The 
general  character  of  their  jDusiness  is  the  same  ;  and  it  is 
to  be  presumed  that  their  rolling  stock  has  been  con- 
structed, as  to  weight  and  dimensions,  with  due  regard  to 
the  width  of  their  respective  gauges.  I  would  therefore 
respectfully  ask,  whether  it  would  not  have  been  as  well 
for  your  Chief  Engineer  to  have  obtained  from  these 
sources,  some  reliable  data  upon  which  to  base  his  argu- 
ments, instead  of  basing  them  so  entirely  upon  mere  as- 
sumptions. 


li  A  BEYIEW  OF  THE  17ABR0W  GAUGE  THEORY. 

But  as  he  has  not  done  so,  and  does  not  give  any  rea- 
sons, either  satisfactory  or  otherwise,  for  this  apparent 
discrepancy  between  dead  and  live  weight  upon  the  re- 
spective gauges,  I  would  respectfully  ask  him,  why  this 
percentage  is  necessarily  greater  upon  the  4  ft.  8*  in. 
gauge,  and  less  upon  the  3  ft.  gauge,  than  it  is  upon  the 
3  ft.  6  in.  gauge  ?  And  will  he,  or  any  other  of  the  many 
advocates  of  this  extreme  narrow  gauge  theory,  under- 
take to  demonstrate  why  a  platform  ten  feet  square,  and 
capable  of  upholding  a  given  maximum  weight,  should 
necessarily  be  of  more  than  twice  the  weight  and  strength 
of  one,  ten  feet  long  and  five  feet  wide,  and  capable  of  sus- 
taining just  one  half  of  the  same  maximum  weight  ?  And, 
again,  if  an  ordinary  four-wheel  truck,  duly  proportioned 
to  the  size  and  weight  of  the  respective  loaded  platforms, 
were  to  be  placed  underneath  each  platform,  why  it  should 
necessarily  require  more  than  twice  the  power  to  move 
the  larger,  that  it  does  to  move  the  smaller  platform  ? 

These  may  be  regarded  as  very  trifling  and  unimpor- 
tant questions.  Yet,  simple  as  they  may  appear,  I  am 
very  much  mistaken  if  they  do  not  reach,  and  effectually 
undermine,  the  foundations  of  .this  narrow  gauge  theory, 
so  far  at  least  as  it  rests  upon  the  great  dead  weight  argu- 
ment. 

In  the  absence  of  any  actual  test,  or  other  demonstra- 
tion, I  will  venture  the  opinion  that  the  larger  platform,  if 
constructed  only  of  equal  proportionate  strength,  will  be 
found  to  be  of  less  than  twice  the  weight  of  the  smaller 
one  ;  and  also,  that  less  than  twice  the  power  will  move 
it. 


A  BEVIEW  OF  THE  NARBOW  GAUGE  THEORY.         15 

If  there  be  even  a  slight  possibility  that  my  opinion  is 
correct,  then  why  not  try,  at  least,  this  very  simple  and 
cheap  experiment  at  once,  instead  of  expending  millions  of 
dollars  upon  what  must,  at  best,  be  regarded  as  a  very 
questionable  theory?  The  trial  may  be  made  at  almost 
any  time,  upon  any  road,  and  with  any  gauge,  by  merely 
making  a  proper  allowance  for  the  unnecessary  length 
and  size  of  the  axles  underneath  the  smaller  platform;  and 
the  experimental  platforms  may  be  of  any  relative  width 
required  to  furnish  the  superficial  area,  or  bearing  surface 
claimed  for  the  respective  gauges. 

This  simple  test  would,  in  my  opinion,  decide  the  whole 
question,  for  the  very  simple  reason,  that  these  experi- 
I  mental  platforms  and  trucks  are  the  foundations  which 
sustain  all  the  superincumbent  weight,  and  transmit  it  di- 
rectly to  Ihe  track  underneath — whether  this  weight  be  in 
the  form  of  additional  length  of  platform,  or  of  the  super- 
structure of  the  car;  or  whether  it  be  in  the  shape  of  pay- 
ing freight  and  passengers. 

I  maintain,  that  the  double  truck  flat,  or  platform  car, 
is  only  an  extension  of  these  end  platforms,  properly  con- 
nected together,  and  supported  under  the  centre  by  a  ten- 
sion rod  of  iron  ;  and  that  the  box  car,  and  the  passenger 
and  saloon  coaches,  are  only  these  very  platforms  and 
their  extensions,  sided  up  and  covered  over  in  a  manner, 
and  with  a  finish  appropriate  to  *  their  respective  uses. 
J  And  it  is  quite  evident  to  my  mind,  that  this  superstruc- 
ture above  the  platform,  which  encloses  the  space  required 
to  protect  the  load,  need  be  no  heavier  upon  the  wider 
gauge,  than  the  proportion  justly  due  to  the  increased  ton- 


16  A  REVIEW  OF  THE  NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY. 

nage,or  number  of  passengers  which  it  is  designed  to  enclose 
and  protect.  If  doubts  exist  upon  this  point,  however,  tlic 
matt  or  may  be  very  easily  settled  by  extending  the  scope 
of  the  proposed  experiment  with  the  platforms,  so  as  to 
include  fully  completed  box  and  passenger  cars,  of  the 
length,  width,  and  height  proposed  for  the  respective 
gauges. 

But  admitting,  for  the  moment,  that  all  the  advantages 
claimed  for  the  3  ft.  6  in.  gauge  are,  or  appear  to  be,  justly 
due  to  that  gauge,  I  should  still  hold,  that,  with  the  ex- 
ception of  the  slight  percentage  chargeable  to  the  wider 
gauge  for  additional  cost  of  construction,  all  these  advan- 
tages can  be  realized  with  greater  economy  and  safety,  by 
using  the  same  character  of  rolling  stock  upon  the  4  ft. 
85  in.  gauge.  And  that  these  advantages,  if  realized  upon 
the  wider  gauge,  would  far  overbalance  the  additional  cost 
of  construction. 

It  has  been  shown  that  the  percentage  chargeable  to 
the  additional  cost  of  construction  for  the  wider  gauge,  is 
very  small,  probably  not  exceeding  5  to  10  per  cent.  In 
order  to  adapt  the  rolling  stock,  which  your  Chief  Engi- 
neer recommends,  to  the  wider  gauge,  it  would  only  require 
the  lengthening  of  each  axle  1  ft.  2  2  inches.  And  the 
weight  of  this  extra  length  of  axle,  and  its  cost,  I  claim 
to  be  the  only  items  which,  under  this  arrangement,  can 
justly  be  charged,  either  as  extra  dead  weight,  or  extra 
cost. 

The  advantages  which  I  would  claim  for  a  road,  thus 
constructed  and  equipped,  over  the  one  recommended  by 
your  Chief  Engineer,  would,  in  brief,  be  these  : 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY.  17 

1 .  If  commercial  advantages  are  to  be  gained  by  ex- 
changing cars  with  connecting  Hues,  you  would  be  hi  a 
condition  to  secure  them. 

2.  A  train,  Hke  a  wagon,  may  be  hauled  much  easier 
with  wlieels  of  large  than  small  diameter.  This  width  of 
gauge  allows  of  considerably  larger  wheels,  under  its 
ordinary  rolling  stock,  than  are  admissible  upon  the  narrow 
gauge  ;  but  with  this  proposed  reduced  height  of  cars  upon 
the  wider  gauge,  the  wheels  may  be  made  so  much  larger, 
that  a  very  material  saving  will  be  etlected  in  power. 

3.  Having  a  greater  base  of  track  in  proportion  to  the 
height  and  width  of  your  cars,  the  irregularities  in  the 
track  would  be  less  apparent ;  and  you  could  certainly 
make  as  fast  time  with  greater  safety,  or  faster  time  with 
equal  safety  than  you  could  upon  the  narrower  gauge. 

4.  The  height  and  width  of  train  being  less  than  that 
in  general  use  upon  the  wider  gauge,  the  atmospheric 
resistance  would  also  be  proportionately  less  ;  and  you 
could  make  faster  time  with  the  tiame  amount  of  power 
than  is  made  upon  the  ordinary  4  ft.  82  in.  railroads. 

6.  You  would  relieve  the  entire  question,  or  at  least 
the  wider  gauge  portion  of  it,  from  the  enormous  load 
of  extra  dead  weight  which  it  has  heretofore  been  com- 
pelled by  its  adversaries  to  carry,  because  under  this  ar- 
rangement it  would  evidentl}'  be  reduced  to  merely  the 
weight  due  to  the  extra  length  of  axles. 

6.  If  time  and  experience  should  happen  to  demonstrate 
jthat  your  Chief  Engineer  is  wrong  in  his  present  convic- 

1  / 


18         A  REVIEW  OF  THE  NARBOW  GAUGE  THEORY. 

tions  upon  this  subject,  you  could  correct  the  mistake 
hereafter  at  much  less  expense  than  you  could  if  the 
grading,  masonry,  superstructure,  rolling  stock,  kc,  were 
all  adapted  to  the  narrow  gauge. 

If  other  reasons  were  wanting,  I  believe  that  those 
already  given  would  fully  justify  the  expenditure  of  the 
very  small  percentage  of  additional  cost  ;  and  also  the 
hauling  of  the  very  small  additional  amount  of  dead  iceight 
whicli  would  be  fairly  chargeable  to  this  arrangement. 

I  have  not  deemed  it  important  to  notice  particularly 
that  portion  of  your  Chief  Engineer's  report  in  which  he 
compares  the  3  ft.  G  in.  with  the  3  ft.  gauge  ;  neither 
have  I  paid  any  attention  to  his  statements,  figures,  and 
illustrations,  respecting  the  size,  weight,  and  proportions 
of  engines,  cars,  iron  rails,  &c.,  or  to  the  centre  of  gravity, 
angle  of  stability',  and  laws  of  equilibrium,  &c.,  &c..  for 
the  reason  that  I  prefer  that  the  advooate?^  of  all  these 
extreme  narrow  gauge  theories  upon  different  gauges, 
should  settle  these  details  among  themselves  :  and.  also, 
for  the  further  reason,  that,  if  my  conclusions  are  right, 
and  theirs  are  wrong,  in  relation  to  the  general  principles 
which  lie  at  the  foundations  of  the  entire  narrow  gauge 
theory,  then  these  details  are,  comparatively  speaking,  of 
very  little  consequence. 

I  will  venture  the  remark,  however,  in  passing,  that,  if 
the  comparisons  which  your  Chief  Engineer  institutes  be- 
tween the  3  ft.  6  in.  and  the  3  ft.  gauges  are  well  founded, 
they  would  not  only  go  very  far  towards  weakeubig 
his  argument  against  the  4  ft.  82  in.  gauge  ;  but  they 
would,   if  carried   sufficiently  far,  be  in  great  apparent 


A  REVIEW  or  THE  NAEEOW  GAUGE  THEORY.  19 

danger  of  «lc.stroyiMji  the  prestige  claimed  for  the  little 
Festiniog  road  in  Wales. 

Your  Chief  Engineer  ha?  omitte<l  to  urge  one  argument 
in  favor  of  narrow  gauge  railroads,  which  is  generallv 
urged  with  great  pertinacity  by  the  advocates  of  that 
theor}'.  althuugli  he  fully  endorses  the  principle.  I  refer 
to  the  advantage  claimed  for  passing  through  curves.  He 
savs:  "I  concede  the  3  ft.  gaui^e  has  an  advantage  in  turninjr 
acute  curves  ;  but  this  is  no  argument;  for,  whatever  niiglit 
be  the  gauge  of  the  track,  I  sliould  locate  tlio  line  of  ruad 
as  straight  as  pojsible,  at  the  same  time  giving  the  cpios- 
tion  of  economv  due  consideration." 

Xow.  I  respectfully  submit,  that,  if  the  narrow  gauge 
has  the  advantage  claimed  for  it  in  this  respect,  it  is  a  vevy 
.strong  argiuiient  in  its  favor,  for  the  reason  that  the 
maximum  load  which  can  l>e  hauled  over  any  railroad 
with  a  given  amount  of  power,  is.  with  the  present  ar- 
rangement of  machinery,  governed  as  much  by  the  increased 
resistance  upon  its  curves,  as  by  the  increased  relati\  e 
resistance  upon  its  grades.  And.  therefore,  if  this  resist- 
ance upon  curves  is  less  upon  the  narrow  than  it  is  upon 
tlie  wider  jrauire.  it  certainlv  is  entitled  to  the  full  benefit 
of  the  argument. 

But  I  believe  this  argument,  like  most  of  the  others 
advanced  in  support  of  the  narrow  gauge  theory,  to  be 
entirely-  fallacious. 

There  are  two  kinds  of  resistances  which  a  curve  im- 
poses upon  an  engine  and  train  while  passing  through  it. 
that  are  not  encountered  upon  a  straight  line.  One  of 
these  is  the  impingement  of  the  flange  of  the  wheel  upon 

I        .     I 


20         A  nEVIEW  OF  THE  XAKROW  GAUGE  THEORY. 

tho  oiitor  rail,  while  overcoming  the  direct,  or  tangential 
tendency  of  the  train  :  and  the  other,  is  the  sliding  of  the 
wheels  upon  one  rail,  a  distance  equal  to  the  difference  in 
the  lengths  of  the  two  rails  throughout  the  curve. 

The  resistance  due  to  the  impingement  of  the  flange 
against  the  rail,  is  greatest  upon  curves  of  the  smallest 
radii,  and  naturallv  diminishes  as  the  radius  increases,  for 
the  reason  that  tlie  angle  of  impingement  becomes  less. 
Now,  with  a  centre  line  of  given  radius,  it  is  evident  that 
the  farther  the  outer  rail  of  the  curve  is  removed  from  this 
centre  line,  the  greater  will  be  the  radius  of  the  curve  of 
tlic  rail  upon  wiiich  this  resistance  occurs;  and  hence, 
the  wider  tiie  gauge,  the  less  will  be  the  resistance. 

The  amount  of  extra  power  required,  at  any  one  time, 
to  overcome  the  resistance  caused  by  the  sliding  of  the 
wheels  which  sustain  one  half  tlie  load,  may  be  regarded 
as  the  same  upon  one  gauge  as  the  other ;  although  the 
length  of  time  during  which,  with  a  given  rate  of  speed, 
this  extra  power  must  be  exercised,  is  in  proportion  to  the 
difference  in  length  of  the  outer  and  inner  rails  of  the 
curve  ;  and  this  difference  will,  of  course,  be  slightly  in 
favor  of  the  narrower  gauge. 

During  the  discussion  of  the  gauge  question  beforo  the 
Erie  Company,  the  opinion  of  Mr.  Robert  Stephenson,  as 
given  before  the  Parliamentary  Commission,  was  quoted 
by  the  advocates  of  the  narrow  gauge,  to  jn'ove  that  the 
resistance  was  greatest  upon  curves  of  the  wide  gauge. 

The  following  question  was  put  to  Mr.  Stephenson  by 
the  Gauge  Commissioners  :  "  Is  the  lateral  friction  greater 
with  one  gauge  than  with  the  other  ?  " 


A  REVIEW  OF  TUK   NARHOW  GAVGE  THEOKY.        21 

Answer,  by  Mr.  R.  Sloplieii.sou  :  "  Any  lateral  friction 
that  arises  must  be  greater  ;  for  it  arises  from  tlie  angle  of 
the  wheel  ajrainst  the  line,  aiul  it  must  be  greater  with  the 
wide  than  with  the  narrow  gauge.*' 

This  propositiiju  was  answered,  and  its  error  demon- 
strated so  efVeetuallv,  bv  Mr.  S.  S.  Tost,  who  was  then 
acting  as  Engineer  and  Superintendent  of  the  Eastern 
Division  of  tlie  road,  that  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  ap- 
pendivig  his  argument  for  your  information. 

I  have  thus  ^iven  vou.  at  some  lemrth.  mv  views  in 
relation  to  the  .'oeommendations  of  General  Buell.  your 
Chief  Engineer,  as  contained  in  his  report  :  and  I  fear 
that  these  views,  in  some  instances,  may  have  been  ex- 
pressed more  franklv,  and  with  irreater  candor,  than  mav 
prove  to  be  entirely  agreeable,  either  to  yourself,  or  to 
him. 

I  was  educated,  as  you  are  aware,  in  the  Broad  Gauge 
I^chool.  having  spent  the  early  portion  of  my  professional 
life  upon  what  is  now  the  Erie  Railway,  and  its  branches 
and  extensions,  of  which  Comi)anv  vou  were  at  that  lime 
an  active  and  prominent  Director.  You  can.  therefore, 
make  such  allowances  as  you  may  think  proper,  for  early 
prejudices,  in  what  I  have  said  or  may  say  upon  this  sub- 
ject. I  am  not  conscious,  however,  of  entertaining  a  feeling 
either  of  prejudice  or  of  interest  in  the  matter,  my  only 
desire  being,  if  possible,  to  arrive  at  the  truth. 

You  have  done  me  the  honor  to  ask  for  my  written 
opinion:  "as  to  whether  a  tirst-class  railroad,  of  equal 
speed,  comfort  to  passengers,  and  capacity  for  freight,  with 


22         A  RETIEW  OF  THE  NAREOW  GAUGE  THEORY. 

those  possessed  by  the  gauges  now  in  general  use,  ean  be 
built  upon  a  narrow  gauge  ;  and  if  so,  what  gauge  would 
vou  recommend  ?  " 

In  discussing  a  question  of  this  importance  it  should  be 
borne  in  mind,  that  the  general  adoption  of  the  4  ft.  82  in. 
gauge,  both  in  this  country  and  in  Europe,  is  not  the  re- 
sult of  accident,  or  the  want  of  careful  study  and  investi- 
gation. 

Wlien  Mr.  George  Stephenson  first  conceived  the  great 
idea  of  adapting  locomotive  steam  power  to  purposes  of 
railroad  transportation,  it  is  true  that  the  controlling  idea 
of  his  practical  mind  was.  not  so  much  the  establishment 
of  the  most  useful  and  economical  gauge,  as  it  was  the 
substitution  of  steam  for  horse  power  ;  but  the  roads,  and 
the  wagons  upon  and  to  which  this  new  motive  power 
was  to  be  applied,  had  already  been  constructed  of  the  4 
ft.  82  in.  gauge  ;  and  a  long  experience  had  shown  them 
to  be  the  best  and  most  economical  that  could  be  devised 
for  the  use  of  horse  power.  Mr.  Stephenson  found  no 
difficulty  in  adapting  his  machiuer\'^  and  power  to  that 
gauge ;  and  he  therefore  adopted  and  advocated  it  during 
his  long  and  eventful  life.  It  therefore  very  soon  became 
the  ruling  gauge  of  England  ;  and,  as  the  first  locomotives 
that  were  used  in  the  United  States,  were  manufactured  in 
England,  it  very  naturalh'  became  the  ruUng  gauge  in 
this  country. 

At  a  subsequent  period,  the  subject  of  gauges  un- 
derwent a  most  searching  investigation  in  England,  by  a 
Parliamentary  Commission,  liefore  which  Mr.  Brunei  and 
other  distinguished  engineers  advocated  a  gauge  of  much 


A  RETIEW  OF  THE  NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY.         23 

frreater  wMth.  while  Mr.  Stephenson  and  others  adhered 
to  the  original  gaiige  of  4  ft.  85  in.  :  and  this  gauge  was 
finally  approved  by  the  Commission. 

At  a  still  later  day  the  question  of  gauges  was  thorough- 
ly dis^jussed  hv  some  of  the  best  enjrineerinfr  talent  in  this 
country,  before  the  Xew  York  and  Erie  Railroad  Com- 
pany :  and  that  Company,  being  composed  of  som?  of  the 
most  practical  and  enlightened  men  in  this  city,  after  hear- 
ing the  most  exhaustive  reports  and  arguments  upon  the 
subject,  decided  to  adhere  to  the  gauge  of  0  ft.,  which  hal 
previously  been  adopted. 

At  another  time  the  Legislatures  of  New  Jersey  and 
Ohio  passe<i  laws  establishing  the  gauge  of  railroads,  in 
their  ivspective  States,  at  4  ft.  10  in.,  for  the  purpose,  it 
is  believed,  of  preventing  an  interchange  of  rolling  stock 
between  their  own  roads,  and  those  of  adjoinina:  States. 
This  restriction,  however,  if  not  repealed,  has  been  in  a 
great  measure  superseded  by  the  very  questionable,  if  not 
dangerous  device,  of  the  h^oad-tread  or  compromise  wheel, 
which  allows  the  same  car  to  run  over  both  the  4  ft.  82  in. 
and  the  4  ft.  10  in.  sauces. 

In  many  of  the  Southern  States,  and  also  in  Canada, 
gauges  of  5  and  02  ft.  have  been  adopted  to  a  great  ex- 
tent, and  used  successfully  durincr  manv  vears. 

The  original  charter  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  Com- 
pany, provided  that  the  President  of  the  United  States 
should  decide  upon  the  width  of  gauge  for  that  road. 
Being  then  in  the  employ  of  the  Government,  at  Wash- 
ington. I  was  requested  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Interior 
to  recommend  a  gauge  to  be  adopted  by  the  President. 
I  accordingly  recommended  the  5  ft.   gauge,  which  was 


24  A  REVIEW  OF  THE   NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY. 

approved.  Congress,  however,  changed  it  afterwards,  hv 
special  re:?olution,  to  4  ft.  82  in.;  the  argument  urged  in 
favor  of  the  change  being,  that  all  eastward  connecting 
railroads  were  of  that  gauge  ;  and  it  would  therefore 
be  fatal  to  the  enterprise,  to  make  a  break  of  gauge  at  the 
Misvsouri  River. 

In  view  of  all  these  fiiets,  it  must  be  conceded  that  a 
great  deal  of  thought,  investigation,  experience  and  legis- 
ation  have  already  been  bestowed  upon  the  subject :  but 
in  no  instance,  so  far  as  n)y  knowledge  extends,  has  the 
idea  Vjeen  seriously  entertained  or  advocated,  of  reducing 
the  <rau<re  of  main  trunk  lines  of  railwav.  below  the  limit 
of  4  ft.  82  in.,  until  the  present  agitation  of  the  subject  has 
given  prominence  to  that  idea. 

And  now,  if  this  theory  of  extreme  narrow  irauges  for 
all  classes  of  railroads,  shall  prove  to  be  well  founde<l.  it 
certainly  becomes  us  to  look  about,  and  see  whether  the 
same  radical  error  has  not  crept  into  our  other  metho'is  of 
locomotion,  transportation,  and  the  various  applications  of 
natural  and  mechanical  power.  Whether  our  heavy  draft 
horses,  and  clumsy  carts  and  wagons,  could  not  profitably 
be  exchanged  for  a  greater  number  of  the  more  diminu- 
tive Shetland  pony,  with  carriages  to  fit ;  or.  perhaps,  for 
something  approacaing  still  nearer  to  our  single  tracked 
wheelbarrow  or  velocipede.  Whether  our  State  canals 
should  not  have  been  made  narrower  instead  of  wider. 
Whether  the  streets  in  the  lower  portion  of  our  city 
should  not  be  diminished  instead  of  enlarged  in  width. 
Whether  our  steamers  and  sailing  vessels  should  not  have 
retained  their  original  dimensions,  instead  of  growing  to 


A  BETIEW  OF  THE  NABROW  GAUGE  THEORY.  25 

their  present  enormous  proportions.  AVhether  five  hotels 
had  not  better  be  constructed,  with  accommodations  for 
one  hundred  people  each,  instead  of  one  single  hotel  with 
accommodations  for  five  hundred  people.  And  whether 
twenty  stationary  engines  of  five-horse  power  each,  had 
not  better  be  employed  to  do  the  work  of  one  single  en- 
gine of  a  hundred-horse  power. 

It  is  certainly  important  that  these  vital  principles  should 
be  thoroughly  examined  ;  and  if  it  shall  be  found  that 
we  have  been  living,  during  the  past  half  century,  under  a 
radical  mistake  or  illusion,  it  is  hifrli  time  that  the  mi?i;ike 
should  be  corrected,  and  the  illusion  dispelled. 

It  is  quite  evident,  to  my  own  mind,  that  this  entire 
subject  of  railwav  irauires.  lias  become  too  much  confused 
and  h»efogged  bv  technical  phrases,  scientific  terms,  and 
gUttering  generalities.  "When  stripped  of  these,  it  iKi-comes 
simply  a  question  of  sound  judgment,  and  good  sirong 
common  sense. 

Everv  iiitellifrent  fiirmer  un«lerstands  that  a  load  of  hav 
will  tip  over  easier  than  a  load  of  stone,  simply  because  it 
is  more  top-heavy:  but  if  you  put  your  "  centre  of  gravity," 
"angle  of  stability."  and  *'  laws  of  equilibrium""  at  him, 
he  will  become  confused  at  once. 

Every  intelligent  teamster,  or  carter,  know.<  that  he  can 
haul  a  given  quantity  of  tonnage  a  given  distance,  cheaper, 
if  not  quicker,  by  using  a  good,  strong,  double  team  with 
one  suitable  wagon  :  instead  of  by  hauling,  with  the  same 
team,  two  wagons  of  half  the  capacity  each,  one  behind 
the  other  :  or  instead  of  dividing  his  team,  and  attaching 
one  horse  sepjiraudy  to  each  of  the  smaller  wai.ous:  simply 

I 


26  A  BEVIEW  OF  THE   NARROW  GWCtK  TmBCffil. 

because,  in  the  case  of  the  two  smaller  wtis^m^,  one  be- 
hind the  other,  he  has  twice  the  number  o-facsk^  to  grease, 
and  their  friction  to  overcome  ;  and  at  Itea^lt  one  half  of 
his  load  Ls  too  far  behind  his  team  to  l)e  haiaikd  easily; 
and  in  the  case  of  two  single  horses  hite!i«^'l  ittc*  two  smaller 
wagon*,  he  not  only  has  twice  the  nnirih^r  of  axles  or 
journal-,  but  he  has  an  extra  driver  to  piaT ;  but  if  you 
should  put  the  great  dead  weight  and  extma  power  argu- 
mentir  at  him  with  all  their  force,  iQn  to  Wixf  Ite  would  not 
understand  a  word  vou  might  sav. 

And  .still,  the  great  principles  which  un-lieT^'e  and  should 
govern  the  construction  and  management  ^o^  railroads,  are 
simply  these,  or  others  equally  practical  Im  tlteir  applica- 
tion, and  nothing  more. 

Applying  these  principles,  as  well  a.<5  T  a'^'m  able,  to  the 
specific  question  of  gauges  now  under  eO'n:*S''S^ra1ion  ;  and 
availing  myself  of  a  somewhat  exten*Ietl  anD-'i  varied  ex- 
perience, both  in  the  construction  and  lamsuiagenient  of 
railroa-U.  I  am  forced  to  the  conclusion,  tlmi  a  first-class 
railroad  cannot  be  constructed  and  operair..^S  with  a  gauge 
narrower  tlian  4  ft.  83  in .  that  wilU  if  4(njTjg  a  large 
and  miscelltmeous  business,  combine  alS  ibe  elements 
specific]  in  tlie  interrogatory  contained  m  y^mr  letter — to 
wit.  *' equfd  speed,  comfort  to  passenger?.  amHi  capacity  for 
freight  '* — with  as  much  facility  ami  eecHMMnj  a-s  the  same 
elements  can  be  combined  upon  the  4  ft.  81  btj-  or  even  a 
broader  gauge. 

The  .*ubject,  as  presented  to  my  minifL  lii?.*i  naturally 
divided  itself  ijito  the  following  general  prwpr.^agtioiis  : 

\st.  Comparative  cost  of  construction. 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY.  27 

2d.  Comparative  facility  and  economy  in  packing  or 
loading. 

3tf.  Comparative  economy  in  hauling. 

4^/i.  Comparative  advantages  of  a  gauge  common  to 
connecting  lines. 

As  to  the  first  proposition,  I  am  prepared  to  admit  that 
the  advantages  are  slightly  in  favor  of  the  narrow  gauge, 
hut  to  nothing  like  the  extent  claimed  hy  the  advocates  of 
the  extreme  narrow  gauge  theory. 

As  to  the  second  proposition,  I  claim  that  the 
advantages  are  so  greatly  in  favor  of  the  wider  gauge,  that 
they  very  far  outweigh  the  additional  cost  of  construction. 

I  believe  that  the  width  of  rolling  stock,  adapted  to 
the  4  ft.  8  J-  in.  gauge,  can,  if  proper  study  and  care  are 
used  in  details,  be  constructed  cheaper  and  of  less  weiglit, 
in  proportion  to  its  comfort  and  capacity,  than  rolling 
stock  of  the  same  relative  width,  strength,  durability, 
comfort,  and  capacity  can  be  constructed,  and  run  with 
equal  speed,  economy,  and  safety  upon  a  narrower  gauge. 

Tlie  comparisons  that  are  constantly  being  made  by 
the  advocates  of  the  extreme  narrow  gauge  theory,  be- 
tween the  weight  and  capacity  of  the  rolling  stock  re- 
quired for  their  favorite  gauges,  and  that  now  in  general 
use  upon  the  wider  gauge  railways,  both  in  this  country 
and  in  Europe,  is  exceedingly  unjust  tovranls  the 
broader  gauge;  for  the  reason  that  the  extreme  nihiinium 
of  cost  and  weight  has  been  studied  and  appro[)riated 
for  their  own  gauges  ;  and  every  incli  of  space  is  assumed 
as  being  occupied  during  the  entire  trip  with  Ike  or  pay- 


28  A  RETIEW  OF  THE  NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY. 

ing  weight  ;  while,  for  the  wider  gauges,  they  adopt  for 
the  eoniparisoii,  a  miscellaneous  outfit,  made  up  without 
strict  regard  to  these  elements  of  cost  and  weight,  and 
used  promiscuously  for  way  and  through  business — some- 
times full,  sometimes  partially  loaded,  and  sometimes  en- 
tirely empty,  according  to  the  nature  of  the  traffic,  or  the 
circumstances  which  control  the  business  of  the  road. 

They  seem  to  imagine  that  all  these  contingencies 
would  be  avoided  upon  the  narrower  gauge,  even  if  it 
were  doing  the  same  kind  of  business. 

But  let  the  test,  whicli  I  have  suggested  in  another  place, 
be  fairly  applied  to  this  question,  and  I  am  perfectly  con- 
tent to  abide  the  result. 

I  am  prepared  to  admit,  that  a  great  deal  of  unnecessary 
and  non-paying  weight,  as  well  as  useless  and  injurious 
friction,  are  constantly  being  hauled  over  our  railroads. 
And  I  trust  that  the  ventilation  which  this  subject  is  now 
undergoing,  will  have  a  tendency  to  correct  this  particular 
evil,  even  if  nothing  better  shall  result  from  it.  I  might 
illustrate  this  proposition  by  referring  to  the  enormous 
and  unnecessary  weight  of  some  of  our  passenger, 
drawing-room,  and  sleeping  cars,  in  proportion  to  the 
number  of  passengers  which  they  .accommodate.  Many 
of  these  are  nearly  as  heavy  as  the  engine  that  hauls 
them  ;  and  they  are  often  obliged  to  be  coupled  as  near 
the  engine  as  possible,  in  order  to  be  moved  at  all. 

I  cannot  admit,  however,  that  this  evil  is  in  any  degree 
chargeable  to  the  width  of  track.  It  results  entirely  from 
the  excessively  hroad  gauge  of  the  managers  of  some  of 
our  railways  ;  and  of  the  caterers  to  the  public  taste,  who 
are  allowed  to  come  between  the  public,  and  the  stock- 


A  RETIEW  OF  THE  NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY.  29 

holders  who  construct  the  road,  and  furnish  the  power  to 
haul  these  cars  ;  and  this  evil  would  be  as  likely  to  occur 
upon  one  gauge  as  another. 

As  to  the  third  proposition,  with  reference  to  the  com- 
parative cost  and  application  of  locomotive  power  upon 
railways  of  different  gauges,  I  will  respectfully  refer  you, 
for  actual  results  upon  the  6  ft.  gauge,  to  the  appended 
extract  from  General  McCallum's  Report,  upon  the  New 
York  and  Erie  Railroad  ;  and  for  actual  results  upon  the 
4  ft.  85  in.  gauge,  to  a  communication  which  has  been 
kindly  furnished  me  by  Mr.  H.  Stanley  Goodwin,  Assistant 
General  Superintendent  of  the  Lehigh  Valley  Railroad, 
which  will  also  be  found  in  the  Appendix.  But,  for  the 
narrow  gauges,  I  can,  unfortunately,  refer  you  only  to 
theoreiical  and  assumed  results  ;  and  I  do  not  regard  these 
as  being  sufficiently  reliable,  either  to  warrant  a  comparison 
with  known  results  upon  the  broader  gauges,  or  to  justify 
any  conclusions  that  might  result  from  such  a  comparison. 

From  General  McCallum's  Report  it  appears  : 

1.  That  an  engine  of  66,050  lbs.  total  weight,  and 
having  40,050  lbs.  weight  upon  the  driving  wheels,  hauled 
a  train  consisting  of  100  loaded  cars,  weighing  3,423,150 
lbs.,  over  a  mile  of  road,  on  an  ascent  of  6.14  ft.,  and  a 
curve  of  5,730  ft.  radius,  in  lU  minutes. 

2.  That  the  same  engine  hauled  a  train  of  22  loaded 
cars,  weighing  753,082  lbs.,  over  a  mile  of  road,  on  an 
ascent  of  00|  ft.,  and  a  curve  of  1,146  ft.  radius,  in  6^ 
minutes. 

3.  That  the  same  engine  hauled  a  train  of  25  loaded 
cars,  weighing  870,250  lbs.,  over  one  mile  of  road,  on  an 


80  A  REVIEW  OF  THE  NARROW   GAUGE  THEORY. 

ascent  of  52  ft.,   and  a  curve  of  1,14G  ft.  radius,   in    9 
minutes. 

4.  That  the  same  engine  hauled  a  train  of  23  headed 
cars,  weighing  800,330  lbs.,  over  one  mile  of  road,  on  an 
ascent  of  60  ft.,   and  a  curve  of  1.G37  ft.  radius,    in    5 

minutes. 

5.  That  the  same  engine  hauled  a  train  of  24  loaded 
cars,  weighing  821,544  lbs.,  over  one  mile  of  road  on  an 
ascent  of  CO  ft.,  without  curvature,  in  5^  minutes. 

G.  That  the  same  engine  took  the  same  train  up  the 
next  mile,  on  a  grade  of  58  ft.,  and  through  a  curve  of 
05''  per  100  ft.,  in  82  minutes. 

It  appears  from  Mr.  Goodwin's  letter  : 

1.  Tliat  the  engines  in  ordinary  use  upon  the  Lehigh 
Valley  road,  are  of  two  kinds  :  1st,  the  ordinary  10  wheel 
engine,  weighing  from  7G,400  lbs.  to  78,000  lbs.  with  fire 
and  steam,  of  which  from  61, GOO  to  63,000  lbs.  weight  is 
on  the  G  drivers,  and  the  remainder  upon  the  leading 
truck;  2d,  the  other  kind  of  engines  called  "Consolida- 
tion," weigh  8G,000  lbs.  with  fire  and  steam,  of  which 
7G,000  is  on  8  drivers  of  4  ft.  diameter. 

2.  That  the  average  weight  of  freight  cars,  in  general 
use  upon  that  road,  is  3yV  tons  each,  and  that  the  aver- 
age useful  load  which  the;  carry  is  5y^y  tons  each,  mak- 
ing 8y  y  tons  of  car  and  load.* 

3.  That  the  heaviest  traffic  upon  that  road  is  upon  46 
miles,  where  the  grade  is  either  level,  or  descending  at  the 

•  Please  note  here  the  discrepancy  between  facts  and  assumptions. 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  NAKBOW  GAUGE  THEORY.         31 

rate  of  20  ft.  per  mile,  and  that  upon  this  portion  there 
are  many  curves  of  955  ft.  radius. 

4,  That  upon  this  portion,  an  engine  can  haul  down, 
with  the  same  ease,  the  number  of  loaded  cars  that  the 
same  engine  will  haul  up  empty. 

5.  That  this  number  averages  in  good  weatlicr,  150  cars, 
hauled  with  the  10  wheel  engines,  and  in  some  cases  has 
reached  200. 

G.  That  the  "  Consolidation"  engines  have  hauled  250 
cars  over  the  same  road,  '•  and  could  probably  exceed  300 
before  reaching  the  engines*  capacity.'' 

7.  That  upon  12  miles  of  another  portion  of  the  road 
there  is  a  grade  of  96  ft.  per  mile,  with  curves  of  955  ft. 
radius.  Up  this  grade  the  1 0  wheel  engines  haul  22  loaded 
cars,  weighing  194  tons  ;  and  the  "Consolidation  "  engines 
haul  33  loaded  cars,  weighing  290  tons. 

8.  That  upon  an  ascending  grade  of  146  ft.  per  mile 
for  2  miles  in  length,  the  1'^  -heel  engines  haul  37  empty 
cars,  weighing  122  tons,  ana  ihe  "Consolidation''  engines 
haul  55  empty  cars,  weighing  182  tons. 

The  foregoing  synopsis  of  general  results  contains,  per- 
haps, all  the  information  upon  this  point  that  is  required 
for  the  purpose  of  instituting  a  comparison  between  the 
relative  cost  of  power  upon  the  G  ft.  and  the  4  ft.  82  in. 
gauges  respectively  ;  and  also  to  deduce  a  result  which 
would  logically  follow,  upon  a  comparison  between  the  4 
ft.  82  in.  gauge,  and  the  narrower  gauges. 

But  I  will  leave  the  labor  of  such  a  comparison  to  be 
performed  by  the  advocates  of  the  extreme  narrow  gauge 


82  ▲  REVItW  OF  THE  NARROW  QAUGE  THEORY. 

theory,  an«l  close  what  I  have  to  say  upon  this  branch  of 
the  subject  with  the  single  remark,  that  until  this  is  satis- 
factorily done  ;  or  until  such  other  practical  tests  are  ap- 
plied to  the  narrow  gauges  as  will  demonstrate,  beyond  a 
question,  their  superiority  in  this,  as  well  as  in  the  other 
respects  referred  to.  they  should  not  expect,  with  so  much 
apparent  confidence;  that  their  favorite  system  will  so  soon 
supersede  the  one  which  has  been  in  use  so  long  and  so 
successfully. 

As  to  the  fourth  proposition,  with  reference  to  con- 
tinuous gauges,  it  l»eing  more  of  a  commercial  than  an 
engineering  question.  I  would  not  speak  with  so  much 
eonlideuce.  although  I  should,  at  the  present  time,  and 
under  all  the  circumstances,  probably  recommend  the 
4  ft.  82  in.  gauge,  as  the  standard  gauge  of  the  countr}'. 
I  have  never  been  an  advocate,  however,  of  continuous 
gauges  upon  main  trunk  connecting  lines  of  railway, 
merely  for  the  purpose  of  avoiding  the  necessity  of  chang- 
ing cars,  and  breaking  bulk, 

I  believe  that  the  great  damage  and  inconvenience 
growing  out  of  an  interchange  of  cars  upon  thousands  of 
miles  of  connecting,  and  in  many  instances  hostile  or  com- 
peting lines,  very  often  overbalance  any  good,  or  real 
saving  to  the  stockholders,  that  may  result  from  it ;  al- 
though, like  all  other  rules,  it  probably  has  its  exceptions. 
If  the  truth  could  be  ascertained,  I  have  no  doubt 
that  the  present  mania  for  harmonizing  gauges,  and  con- 
solidating lines,  is  more  the  result  of  a  desire,  on  the  part 
of  ambitious  managers,  to  overreach  competing  lines,  by 
the  establishment  of  agencies  and  other  influences  very 
far  in  advance  of  them,  than  any  saving  in  the  actual  cost 


A   REVIEW  or  THE   NAUKOW  GAUGE   THEOItY.  33 

of  transportation,  that,  as  a  general  rule,  can  l>e  sliowu  to 
result  tVoiH  it. 

Iiiasuuich.  however.  a.s  tlie  opinion  of  a  practical  railway 
manager  of  high  reputation.  an«l  of  a  much  larger  cxjuTi- 
ence  in  such  matters  than  my  own.  should  have  n)uch 
greater  weight  than  any  that  I  wouM  venture  to  advance, 
I  will  append  an  extract  from  a  veryal»le  and  comprehen- 
sive report  made  in  1856,  to  the  Xew  York  and  Erie  Kail- 
road  Coni])anv.  bv  General  D.  C  ^[cCallunl.  then  (leneral 
Superintendent  of  that  road,  and  afterwards,  during  the 
late  re  hellion,  the  General  Manager  of  all  the  military 
railroads  in  the  United  States  :  and  as  the  same  rei)ort 
contains,  in  the  same  connection,  important  facts  and  argu- 
ments hearing  upon  the  subject  now  under  consideration, 
relative  to  the  application  of  pov.er :  the  comi)arative 
economy  of  transportation  upon  dillerent  gauges,  and  the 
relation  which  the  width  of  gauge  sh<nild  Ijear  to  the 
amount  of  business  to  l>e  done.  I  will  also  take  the  hltertv 
of  embodying  these  in  the  extract,  for  your  information. 

Having  expressed  an  opinion  so  decidedly  against  wJ. 
gauges  of  a  width  less  than  4  ft.  82  inches,  it  will  probably 
be  regarded  as  supererogatory  for  me  to  furnish  an 
answer  to  the  concluding  part  of  your  question,  to  wit. 
"  and  if  so.  what  jraujie  would  vou  recommend  ?"' 

I  trust,  however,  that  I  may  be  permilLed  to  state 
the  reasons  which  influenced  me  in  recommending  the 
gauge  of  the  Union  Pacific  Railroad  and  its  branches,  to 
be  established  at  five  feet. 

I  believed  then,  and  new  Ijelieve,  that  experience  has 
demonstrated  that  the  width  of  rolling  stock  in  general 
use  upon  the  4ft.  82  in.  gauge,  is  none  too  wide  to  afford 


84  A  REVIEW  or  THE  XARROW  GACGE  THEOIIY. 

the  iiores^ary  arnl  proper  comfort  to  passeiij:^ors,  an«l 
stowjit^c  capacity  for  the  average  ruling  chisses  of  IVeiglit 
that  are  generally  otTcrel  for  transportation  on  the  main 
trunk  lines  of  railroa«l  in  tliis  country.  I  also  believe  that 
the  gauge  of  4  ft,  82  in.  has  been  fotuul  somewhat  too 
narrow  to  allord  the  requisite  base  for  this  wi<lth  of  rolling 
stock,  to  insure  a  full  measure  of  economy  and  safety,  par- 
ticularly if  run  at  high  rates  of  speed  over  our  somewhat 
imperfect  and  uneven  railroad  tracks. 

This  disproportion  between  the  widths  of  gauge  and 
rolling  stock,  has  undoubtedly]grown  out  of  an  elfort  on  the 
part  of  the  4  ft.  8.^  in.  gauge  managers,  to  reach,  as  nearly 
as  possible,  the  width  of  freight  and  passenger  cars  used 
upon  the  wider  gauges  of  02  and  G  feet,  and  thus  afford  (ap- 
j)roxiniately  at  lea.st)  the  .same  "comfort  to  passengers 
and  capacity  for  freight"  that  are  claimed  for  these  wider 
gauges.  In  doing  this,  I  think  they  have  slightly  over- 
reached the  verge  of  safety,  if  not  of  strict  economy  ; 
and,  therefore,  a  gauge  of  live  feet  placed  under  the  .same 
rolling  stock,  wcnild.  to  some  extent,  correct  this  error. 
Inasmuch,  therefore,  as  I  then  believed  that  the  great 
pioneer  line,  extending  from  the  Missouri  River  to  the 
Pacific  Ocean,  would,  for  many  years  at  least,  have  no 
competitor  ;  and  that  it  could,  therefore,  very  well  afford 
to  run  and  control  its  own  rolling  stock  ;  and  that  other 
Pacific  lines,  when  built,  would,  in  all  probability,  follow  its 
example,  I  had  no  hesitation  in  recommending  the  5  ft. 
gauge. 

The  foregoing  may  bo  regarded  as  only  a  demonstration, 
based  upon  general  principles,  of  the  fallacy  of  the  extreme 


A  REVIEW  OF  THE  NARROW  GAUGE  THEORY.         35 

narrow  gauge  theory,  as  applio«l  to  all  main  tnmk  lines  of 
railway  in  this  country. 

AVhen  these  principles  are  applied  parti«Milarly  to  the 
proposed  Texas  Pacific  Railroad.  1  think  thn*  will  hi 
Ibuud  to  possess  peculiar  force. 

Your  road,  when  completed,  will  necessarily  come  into 
direct  competition,  for  the  great  trans-continental  traffi"^. 
with  the  Central,  Union,  and  Kansas  Pacific  Railroads, 
which  are  already  constructed ;  and  whi<^h.  with  their 
numerous  connections  eastward  of  the  Missouri  River,  form 
continuous  lines  from  the  Pacific  Coast,  at  San  Franci>co. 
to  the  great  commercial  ports  upon  the  Atlantic  sea- 
board. 

The  Xorthern  Pacific  Railway  is  now  uinler  construc- 
tion, from  Puget  Sound,  upon  the  Pacific,  to  our  great 
inland  Lakes,  and  thence  by  numerous  connecting  lines  to 
the  Atlantic  coast.  And  it  will  therefore  very  soon  be- 
come  another  formidable  comi»etitor  for  this  immense 
trafiic. 

The  Canada  Pacific  Railroad  will  also,  in  all  probabiUty, 
very  soon  be  constructed,  and  tV)rm  a  continuous  line  from 
Puget  Sound,  to  the  head  of  deep  ocean  steam  navigation 
upon  the  St.  Lawrence  River  at  Quebec;  thus  forming  an- 
other competitor  for  the  traffic  across  the  continent. 

These  great  competing  lines  will  all  have  an  unbroken 
gauge  of  4  ft.  82  in.  throughout  their  entire  length,  from 
Ocean  to  Ocean. 

I  would,  therefore,  regard  the  commercial  argument  in 
favor  of  an  unbrokeu  gauge,  of  at  least  equal  width,  for 
the  Texas  Pacific  Railroad,  extending  as  it  will  from  San 
Diego  on  the  Pacific,  to  the  Mississippi  River,  and  thence 


36         A  REVIEW  OF  THE  SABBOW  GAUGE  THEORY. 

with  its  connections,  eastward  to  the  Athmtic  Ocean,  as 
lieing  entirely  unanswerable — not  upon  the  ground  that  it 
can  be  defended  upon  strictly  scientific  and  abstract  prin- 
ciples :  but  for  the  more  practical  reason,  that  this  theory 
of  fundirig  gauges,  as  well  as  stocks,  has  become  the 
popular  and  settled  policy  of  the  country,  with  reference 
tu  our  great  competing  lines  of  railway  ;  and  as  such,  is 
looked  upon  with  f^ivor.  not  only  by  those  who  furnish 
capital  to  construct  these  lines,  but  by  those  who  provide 
business  for  them  after  construction. 

If.  therefore,  the  construction  of  your  road  should  be 
imdertaken  ujion  an  inferior  gauge:  and  one  that  would 
necessarily  form  a  break  with  all  its  railroad  connections 
eait  of  the  Mississippi  River.  I  should  very  much  fear  that 
capitalists  would  hesitate  to  furnish  the  means  required 
for  its  construction:  and  that,  if  constructed,  the  travelling 
public,  as  well  as  the  heavy  freighting  interests  of  the 
countrv.  would  discriminate  larjrelv  asfainst  it. 

Thankinix  vou  for  the  confidence  which  vou  have  mani- 
tested  in  my  opinion,  upon  a  subject  of  this  magnitude  : 
and  hoping  that  the  views  herein  expressed  may  aid  you 
to  some  extent,  in  arriving  at  a  correct  conclusion  upon  a 
matter  so  important  to  the  ultimate  success  of  the  great 
enterprise  which  you  have  in  hand, 

I  have  the  honor  to  remain. 

Yours,  very  respectfully, 

Silas  Seymour. 
To  Marshall  0.  Roberts.  Esq., 

P reside Jit  of  the   Texus  Pacific  Riilroad  Company, 

New  York. 


APPENDIX. 


^1  Paper  contrihufed  hj  Mr.  S.  S.  Post.  Ciril  Eagiiu^r.  'm 
relation  to  the  comparafice  resistance  ujjon  raihray 
curves  of  different  gauges  : 

On  a  railroad  having  two  tracks,  it  is  presumed  tnat 
the  centre  line  lietween  the  tracks  is  the  centre  of  location: 
and  that  the  centre  line  will  remain  the  same,  whether  a 
wide  or  a  narrow  gauge  of  track  he  adopted. 

It  is  supposed,  also,  that  the  width  necessary  between 
tracks  will  in  either  case  be  the  same  :  then  one  line  of 
rails  in  each  trac/v  will  be  connnon  to  both  gauges:  and. 
upon  a  curve,  one  will  be  the  inner  rail  of  one  track,  and 
the  other  the  outer  rait  of  the  other  track. 

The  tendenc}*  of  a  locomotive,  upon  entering  a  curve, 
is  to  pursue  a  direct,  or  tangential  course:  and  this  ten- 
dencv  is  overcome  bv  the  resistance  of  the  outer  rail  nci'mg 
against  the  flange  of  the  leadinir  wheel. 

This  impinging  upon  the  rail  does  not  take  place  on  a 
straight  road,  where  the  line  of  motion  is  parallel  with 
the  lines  of  the  rails.  In  passing  through  a  curve,  there- 
fore, it  must  be  caused  by  the  line  of  motion  forming  an 
angle  with  the  hue  of  the  outer   rail,   the   resistance    of 


38  APPENDIX. 

which,  to  the  flange  of  the  wheel,  constantly  changes  the 
direction  of  the  line  of  motion. 

It  is  evident  that  this  resistance  will  be  more  or  lecs«. 
as  the  angle  is  greater  or  smaller;  and  that  the  angle  Ls 
greater  as  the  radius  of  curvature  of  the  outer  rail  is  less. 
It  is  also  evident  that  the  radius  of  the  outer  rail  of  th2 
inner  tracic  will  be  the  same,  let  the  width  of  that  track  be 
what  it  mav:  and  that  anv  difterent  resistance  of  the  curves, 
in  consequence  of  the  difference  of  gauges,  can  take  place 
only  at  the  outer  rails  of  the  outer  tracks. 

Let  it  be  supposed  that  the  radius  of  the  centre  line 
of  a  railwav  curve  is  1.000  feet,  and  that  the  tracks  are  6 
feet  apart:  and  let  it  be  required  to  determine  the  resist- 
ance of  the  outer  rail  to  the  flange  of  the  leading  wheel 
of  a  locomotive  engine,  upon  a  track  6  feet  wide,  and  also 
upon  a  track  4  ft.  8i  inches  wide. 

Then  the  radius  of  the  curve  of  the  outer  rail  of  the 
Cft.  track  will  be  1.009  ft.,  and  of  the  4  ft.  8^  inch  track 
1.007  ft.  8 J  inches,  or  1.007^^  ^t.  very  nearly.  The  gauge  of 
the  wheels,  or  distance  between  the  flanges,  where  they 
touch  the  rails,  is  usually  about  \  of  an  inch,  say  j-f.^y  of 
a  foot,  less  than  the  gauge  of  the  rails,  and  the  average 
distance  at  which  the  flanges  run  from  either  rail,  when 
upon  a  straight  line,  will  not  difler  much  from  y^^  of  a 
foot. 

Let.  therefore,  the  flange  of  the  wheel  enter  the  curve 
at  the  distance  of  j^  of  a  foot  from  the  rail,  and  continue 
in  the  same  direction,  until  it  touches  the  curve,  then  this 
point  of  contact  will  be  at  the  extremity  of  an  arc,  of 
which  .03  will  be  the  versed  sine  ;  and  the  distance  moved 


APPENDIX.  30 

bv  the  wheel,  after  entering  the  curve,  will  be  the  sin^  of 
the  same  arc. 


C 


{ 


low  X  2  -  .03)  X  .03  )^  =   TiVtr-oV  feet 

will  be  the  distance  moved  on  the  wide  jraujie:  and 

1U07.7X2  —  .03)  .03  )  -  =  1^^^  feet 

the  distance  moved  on  the  narrow  gauge,   after  entering 
the  curve,  before  the  impinging  action  will  conmience. 

yow.  'i[,\,%'  =  .0077113  is  the  natimd  sine  of  the 
angle  of  resistance  upon  the  outer  rail  of  the  ickhr  track; 
and  tTTV-^-  =  .0077156  is  the  natural  sine  of  the  ande  of 
resistance  upon  the  outer  rail  of  the  narrow  track,  at  the 
points  where  the  flanges  begin  to  impinge. 

The  first  angle  is  therefore  0^^  20'  30U4"  :  and  the 
Other  is  0^  26"  311?  •!" :  makincr  tlie  angle  of  resistance  4i4 
of  a  second  less,  upon  the  wide  tlian  upon  the  narrow 
track. 

Assuming  the  adhesion  of  the  wheels  to  the  iron  rails  to 
l»e  equal  to  i  of  the  whole  weight  of  and  upon  the  truck 
of  an  engine  or  car,  then  the  force  of  3.y\^^W^  ^'^'^-  P^^ 
ton  (2.0001bs.),  will  be  required  to  overcome  the  resistance 
on  the  wide  track;  and  3.  j*>/^,^~\,V  lbs.  per  ton  on  the  nar- 
row track  :  making  a  difference  of  jj^f  f  o  ^^^-  P^^  ^^^"• 
which,  although  scarcely  appreciable,  is  in  tavor  of  the 
wide  gauge. 

The  above  calculation  does  not,  of  course,  take  into  ac- 
count the  cenlrifugid  force  of  the  engine  or  train  ;  but  the 
fiower  required  to  resist  or  overcome  this  force  is  inversely 
05  the  radius  of  curvature,  the  weight  and  velocity  being  the 


40  APPENDIS. 

same.      For  F  =  '"  X-^^  represents  the  ccntiiliigal  force, 

when  ir  is  put  for  tlie  weight,  g  the  gruvLtjr,  k  d*e  v-elocity, 
R  the  radius,  and  F  tlie  force. 

It  will  be  seen  at  once,  on  inspection  *>tr  lh^  f<»ruiula, 
that  Z' i>  diminished  as  It  is  increased.  A^Min^liijjg.  Ijow- 
ever.  that  the  centrifugal  force  is  as  niu<-:h  m  l3ie  i^a^e  of 
the  idle  as  the  narroiu  gauge,  still  this  tV>i:<,Te  i*^  ret^isted 
and  overcome  by  the  same  means  ;  and  tfcje  jx^wer  re- 
quired L?  in  focor  of  the  wide  trad',  in  pre<:iLr*^'ll5  iLe  same 
proportion,  as  for  overcoming  the  other  rvi;*irXaijce,  as 
above  stated. 

Hen«:-e  it    appears   that  Mr.    Stephea^oa'*    amrsver   to 
Question  241  is  entirely  erroneous. 


Extrad  from  a  report  made  hj  General  D,  C  Mk.Callum, 
General  Superintendent,  to  the  Xe^c  Y'^rk  tiud  Erie 
Roilroad  Company,  dated  March  25,  1>-St5 : — 

EXPETtlMENTS    FOR    DETERMINING     EFFECT     OF    G^iMiTS   AND 

CURVATURE. 

Experiments  were  made  in  September  lat*tt.  with  the 
view  of  determining  the  relative  power  refjatm^i  upon  the 
several  Divisions  of  the  road  for  the  trark*|i»o»niitjon  of 
heavy  freight,  by  ascertaining  the  maximu.rjjj  ]f*a.d  any 
given  engine  can  haul  over  those  portions  of  eac^  Division 
which  limit  the  load. 

For  this  purpose,  a  single  locomotive  en^sM;  was  run 


APPENDIX.  41 

the  entire  distance  from  Dunkirk  to  Piormont,  witli  trains 
varying  to  suit  the  ruling  grades  of  the  respective  Divisions. 
As  these  experiments  were  not  intended  to  set  at  rest 
questions  of  a  purely  scientific  character,  the  accuracy  ne- 
cessary to  that  end  was  not  observed.  It  is  believed,  liow- 
ever,  that  they  have  been  made  with  sufficient  care  to  de- 
termine the  practical  objects  more  immediately  in  view; 
and  show  the  capacity  of  the  road  and  its  machinery  to  be 
adequate  to  the  movement  of  an  immense  tonnage,  and  at 
a  less  cost  per  ton,  for  a  large  traffic,  than  can  be  attained 
on  any  road  of  less  gauge,  and  of  equal  grades  and  cur- 
vature. 

The  engine  selected  for  this  purpose  was  of  the  follow- 
ing proportions  : — Total  weight,  66,050  lbs.  ;  "Wciglit  on 
driving  wdieels,  40,050  lbs.  :  Cylinders,  17  in.  diameter  ; 
Length  of  stroke,  24  in.  :  Driving  wheels,  5  ft.  diameter; 
Maximum  pressure  of  steam  on  cylinders  without  slipping 
the  wheels,  140  lbs.  ;  or,  deducting  the  atmospheric  pres- 
sure, 125y\j-lbs.  effective  pressure  per  square  inch. 

The  traction  of  the  engine,  that  is  its  power  applied  at 
the  circumference  of  the  wheels  and  by  which  it  is  impelled, 
neglecting  its  friction,  may  be  stated  thus  : 

125A  X  17  X  17  X  2-1  _  j,^^ 

This  is  tlie  total  resistance,  consisting,  principally,  of 
the  friction  of  the  engine  and  tender,  of  the  cars,  the  gravity 
of  the  train  on  ascending  grades,  and  the  resistance  of 
curves,  which  this  engine,  under  an  effective  pressure  of 
125yV  lbs.  per  square  inch  upon  its  pistons,  can  overcome. 

The  engine  and  teud-r  were  moved  with  slightly  accele- 


42  APPENDIX. 


rated  motion,  on  a  level,  under  an  effective  pressure  of  3 
lbs.  Their  friction,  therefore,  without  any  load  attached, 
is : 

3XiIX  11X1^  =  347  lbs. 
60 

It  has  been  customary  to  estimate  the  friction  of  cars, 
with  wheels  of  30  in.  and  journals  of  3  in.  diameter,  at 
about  7  lbs.  per  ton  ,  or,  8  lbs.  per  ton  for  wheels  33  in. 
and  journals  '61  in.  diameter — the  dimensions  of  those  in 
use  on  this  road  ;  but  the  experiments  made,  show  con- 
clusively that  the  friction  of  the  loaded  cars  did  not  exceed 
43  to  5  lbs.  per  ton. 

It  has  also  been  usual  to  estimate  the  additional  fric- 
tion of  the  engine,  in  consequence  of  its  load,  at  one  pound 
per  ton  of  its  load  on  a  level.  This  item  will  of  course 
be  reduced  as  the  friction  of  the  cars  is  reduced. 

After  a  careful  examination  and  comparison  of  the 
loads  niov^ed  upon  the  ruling  grades  and  curves  of  various 
sections  of  the  road,  it  is  assumed  that  the  friction  of  the 
cars  is  4^  lbs.  per  ton  of  2,000  lbs.;  the  resistance  of 
curves  I  lb.  per  ton  per  degree  of  curvature  per  100  ft.  ; 
and  the  additional  friction  of  the  engine  3  lb.  per  ton  of 
load  on  a  level  and  straight  line,  or  its  equivalent. 

The  weight  of  the  engine  on  its  drivers  being  40,050 
lbs.,  and  the  traction  14,485  lbs.,  the  adhesion  was,  there- 
fore, fJJI  J  ^^^/ij^,  or  not  less  than  36  per  cent,  of  the 
insistant  weight.  This  has  heretofore  been  variously  es- 
timated at  from  122  to  25  per  cent. 

The  tender,  with  its  complement  of  wood  and  water, 
weighed  40,240  lbs. 


APPENDIX.  43 

A  train  consisting  of  100  loaded  cars,  weighing  3,423,- 
150  lbs.,  making  the  total  weight  of  engine,  tender  and 
cars,  3,529,440  lbs.,  or  1,765  tons,  very  nearly,  was  taken 
over  a  mile  of  road,  on  an  ascent  of  6.14  ft.,  and  a  curve 
of  l^or  5,730  ft.  radius,  in  Hi  minutes.  The  preceding 
mile  being  on  an  uniform  grade  of  6  ft.,  ascending  also, 
no  advantage  could  have  been  taken  of  momentum  pre- 
viously acquired  by  the  train. 

The  resistances  overcome  in  this  case  are  estimated  as 
follows  : 


347  lbs. 

7,702  " 

4,104  " 

882  " 

1,410  " 

Friction  of  engine  and  tender,        -    .    .     - 
"  cars  l,711xVijV  tons  at  4i  lbs.,     - 

^        ..         ,           .              ,    ,     .     3,529,440  X  6.14 
(jravity  of  engine  and  train __ 

Resistance  of  curve  1,7G5  X  |  lb.,        -    -    - 

Additional  friction,  i  ("^^t—  +  l,711vWu)    1.^ 

Total  resistances, 14,445  lbs. 

or  40  lbs.  less  than  the  estimated  traction. 

A  train  of  22  cars,  weighing  753,082  lbs.  or  376^Vi7 
tons,  and  with  engine  and  tender  weighing  859,372  lbs,, 
or  429-jyy^^  tons,  was  taken  up  a  mile  of  GO5  feet  ascend- 
ing grade,  through  a  curve  of  5°  or  1,146  feet  radius,  in 
Ga  minutes. 

Friction  of  engine  and  tender, 347  lbs. 

"  cars  376^  tons  at  4^  lbs.       -    -    -      1,094   " 

n       -i       t          •             J  i     •      859,372  X  60-5  ,, 

Gravity  of  engine  and  train,  .  — — -      y,o47 

Resistance  of  curve  429/5^^  X  2^,    -    -    -    -      1.074   " 
Additional  friction,  i  (^^^-^i^*  _|.  376^  )        I.40I   " 

Total  resistance,         • 14,363  lbs. 


44  ATPENDIX. 

or  122  11).^.  less  than  the  maximum  traction,  or  power  of 
the  engine  under  an  ellective  steam  pressure  of  125fybs. 
per  square  inch. 

On  a  mile  of  52  feet  ascending  grade  and  a  curve  of  5" 
per  100  i'eat,  or  1,140  feet  radius,  a  train  of  25  loaded 
cars,  weighing  870,250  lbs.  or  435|  tons,  and  with  engine 
and  tender  976,540  lbs.  or  488jyy  tons,  was  taken  up  in 
9  minutes. 

Friction  of  engine  and  tender, 347  lbs. 

cars  4351  at  4^  lbs., 1,958    " 

97fi  540  V  52 

Gravity  of  engine  and  train,  — ' 7  -^ -    -      9,618   " 

5,280 

Resistance  of  curve  488f^V  X  2|,      -    -    -    -      1,220   " 

(9  fil8  _1_  I  090  \ 

'- '     '""    -j-  4351 1  1,422   " 

Total, 14,505  lbs. 

being  an  over  estimate  of  resistances,   or  an  under  esti- 
mate of  traction  of  80  lbs. 

On  a  mile  of  60  feet  ascending  grade,  through  2,900 
feet  of  curve  oh^  or  1,037  feet  radius,  a  train  of  23  loaded 
cars,  weighing  800,330  lbs.  or  400yV-V  tons,  and,  inclu- 
ding engine  and  tender,  a  total  weight  of  906,620  lb-  or 
"^^^fVo  tons,  was  taken  up  in  5  minutes. 

Friction  of  engine  and  tender, 347  lbs. 

"  cars,  400^  tons  at  4|  lbs.,     -    -    -      1,800   " 

(jiavity  of  engine  and  train,   — —:^~ —     -     -     10  302   " 

5,2oU 

Resistance  of  curve,  453yV?r  X  1^      .    _    .  .  793   « 

Additional  friction,  |  ^^-^±1^  ^  4OO,  )  -  1,433   " 

Total, -  14,675  lbs. 

or  190  lbs.  over  estimate  of  resistance. 


ArrENDix.  46 

A  train  of  24  cars,  wcigliiug  821.544  lbs.  or  41 O^',;,,^, 
tons,  total  weight,  ineliuliiig  engine,  927,834  lbs.  or 
•IG^iViuT  tons,  was  taken  up  a  mile  of  GO  feet  grade, 
^vithout  curvature,  in  bh  minutes. 

Friction  of  engine  and  tender, 347  lbs. 

cars,  410/^  X  ^^        1,848   " 

^        .,       927.834  X  CO 

Gravity,  —^^-        10,543   " 

Additional  friction,  4^  I    ■;     -4-410/^1     -    -      1,377   " 
Total, ~14,G75  lbs. 

Resistance  less  than  traction  370  lbs. 

Tiie  same  train  was  taken  the  liext  mile  on  a  grade  of 
58  feet,  through  a  curve  of  05=  per  100  feet,  for  1,500 
feet,  in  Sh  minutes. 

Friction  of  engine  and  tender,       .    -    -    _    _         34.7  Ujg. 

cars,  410/a  X  ^^.        'i-MS   " 

Gravity,  »?^||p  10.132   " 

Resistance  of  curve,  4G3^^^y  X  If.       -    -    -    -         812   " 

-'—- —  410t\,U       1,428" 

Total, ~i4,l327nibs. 

or  over  estimates  of  resistances  of  142  lbs. 

The  average  of  these  six  experiments  shows  an  esti- 
mated resistance  of  14,465  lbs.,  or  20  lbs.  less  than  the 
traction  or  computed  maximum  power  of  the  engine  witli 
the  steam  gauge  indicating  140  lbs.  pressure. 

The  ultimate  power  of  a  well  proportioned  engine,  may 
be  most  easily  and  correctly  determined  from  the  weight 
on  its  driving  wheels.  From  the  experiments  made,  we 
are  able  to  deduce  practical  rules  for  ascertaining  the 


46  APPENDIX. 

gross  weight  of  ears  and  useful  load  whieh   an  engine 
should  take  behind  its  tender. 

COMPARISON    OF   GAUGES. 

Inasmuch  as  the  results  of  these  experiments  are  some- 
what extraordinary  in  ♦Iieir  character,  it  may  be  claimed 
that  the  resistances  assumed  are  too  small  ;  but  then  it 
must  also  be  admitted  that  the  adhesion  was  greater  than 
has  been  stated,  and  it  must  be  conceded  that  practically, 
an  additional  adhesion  of  not  less  than  ten  to  fifteen  per 
cent,  has  been  attained  on  this  road  by  the  skill  of  engi- 
neers in  applying  the  steam  and  managing  their  engines 
with  heavy  loads.  On  the  other  hand,  if  it  be  denied  that 
the  adhesion  was  as  great  as  stated,  then  it  must  follow 
that  the  friction  of  the  cars  and  other  resistances  have 
been  over  estimated.  Whilst  these  experiments  furnish 
valuable  data  for  the  }»urposes  for  which  they  were  more 
j^articularly  made,  they  have  already  shown  the  great  ad- 
vantages which  are  derived  from  the  six  feet  gauge  in  the 
transaction  of  a  h^.aiy  freight  traffic,  particularly  upon  roads 
having  unfavorable  grades  and  curvature. 

Porniit  me  to  state  here,  that  it  is  not  my  purpose  at 
present  to  provoke  a  discussion  as  to  the  relative  merits 
of  the  broad  and  narrow  gauge,  as  that  question,  so  far  as 
this  road  is  concerned,  has  been  fully  settled.  I  may  be 
excused,  however,  for  alluding  to  the  subject  in  connection 
with  these  experiments,  as  a  large  number  of  our  promi- 
nent ^^tockholders,  and  others  whose  opinions  are  entitled 
to  consideration,  still  believe  that  the  adoption  of  the 
wide  gauge  has  proved  seriously  detrimental  to  the  inter- 


APPENDIX  47 

estsof  tlie  Company.  It  is  gratifying  thercroro  to  be  able 
to  ilispel  these  cloiibt!«,  by  pointing  to  the  experiments 
referred  to  as  proof  of  the  fact,  that  what  was  originally 
claimeil  for  the  G  ft.  gauge,  has  been  fully  confirmed  by 
practical  experience. 

Soon  after  the  completion  of  th?  road  to  Otisville,  the 
question  of  location  having  been  disposed  of,  tlie  Company 
were  in  a  condition  to  i)laoe  a  large  portion,  west  of  that 
point,  under  contract  ;  but  about  that  time  grave  doubts 
were  entertained  and  suggested,  as  to  whether  the  broad 
gauge  preWously  adoptcl.  or  the  narrow  gauge  in  common 
use  in  other  parts  of  the  State,  was  the  best  adapted  to  the 
business  of  the  road.  Before  determining  this  question, 
the  Board  of  Directors  deemed  it  expedient  to  examine 
the  arguments  of  the  advocates  of  each:  and  with  this  view 
passed  a  resolution  calling  upon  their  Chief  Engineer,  Con- 
sulting Engineer,  and  Superintendent,  for  re[>orts,  giving 
their  opinions  in  regard  to  ihe  relative  merits  of  the  G 
ft.,  and  4  ft.  8.V  in.  gauges.  A  diversity  of  oi)inion  on  this 
subject  existing  amongst  these  gentlemen,  a  lively  discus- 
sion was  provoked,  and  each,  in  his  zeal  to  fortify  himself 
in  the  position  assumed,  strengthened  it  by  appending  to 
his  report  the  arguments  and  opinions  of  individuals  of  the 
most  eminent  practical  and  scientific  attainments  in  this 
coimtry  and  in  England.  The  evidence  given  before  the 
Commissioners  appointed  by  the  British  Parliament  to 
investigate  the  subject  of  gauges,  was  freely  used  in  this 
discussion,  and  such  a  mass  of  information  elicited  as  to 
place  the  Board  in  possession  of  all  the  prominent  argu- 
ments for  and  agamst  both. 


48  AITEXLEt. 

Aftor  iiKituro  dt'libcration,  ainl  a  full  ami  impartial  in- 
vestiu^jitioii  of  the  subject,  the  Boanl  of  Directors  passed  a 
resolution  a»loi)ting  tlie  0  rt.  gauge:  ami.  after  i)ractically 
tesliiiij:  its  iricrits,  it  cannot  fail  to  be  gratifying  to  itsarlvo- 
cates  to  find  tlieir  jurlgnient  confirmed  by  a  demonstration 
of  its  decided  superiority,  for  the  business  of  this  road, 
over  the  narrow  jrau^ire  that  was  recommended  in  its 
stead. 

It  may  not  be  improper  in  this  place  to  allude  to  argu- 
ments that  were  prominently  used  in  opposition  to  the 
intro  luf'tion  of  the  broad  gauge,  the  fallacy  of  which  I 
tliink  tho  exi)orience  of  this  road  has  fully  proved. 

Whilst  admitting  that  a  gauge  of  G  ft.  woi:M  enable 
the  introduction  of  engines  of  much  greater  capacity  than 
could  be  obtained  by  the  adoption  of  a  gauge  of  4  ft.  8V 
in.,  it  was  claimeil  that  the  latter  would  admit  the  use  of 
engines  of  a  capacity  sufficient  to  haul  as  many  ears  as 
were  considered  profitable  to  connect  in  a  single  train;  as 
mucli  greater  strength  would  be  requirerlin  the  drawheads 
and  couplings  in  order  to  make  the  additional  power 
avail.ible.  It  has  been  found  by  experience  that  there  is 
no  dilliculty  in  giving  all  the  strength  required,  and  that  a 
load  e(^ual  to  the  most  powerful  engine  upon  the  road, 
rarely  produces  the  result  apprehended. 

It  was  also  said  tliat  umfonaibj  of  gauges  was  necessary 
to  the  economical  transportation  of  freight;  and  that  a 
departure  from  the  unifomii^v  hitherto  preserved  would 
involve  additional  expenditure  in  loading  and  uuloadin<^ 
freight,  between  all  connecting  roads  having  different 
gauges,  as  they  would,  from  this  cause,  be  precluded  from 


ArPENDlX. 


49 


interohanpn^  oars  ;  the  «lisj)arity  limit iiif;  tlioir  use  to  the 
particiihir  road  to  which  earli  was  adapted. 

Plausible  as  this  argimieut  may  at  first  sight  appear,  it  is, 
nevertheless,  iii  point  of  fact,  not  true  as  to  the  ecouom{'''tl 
eflects  claimed:  as  the  cost  of  transferrinir  freight  from  the 
cars  of  one  roa<l  to  those  of  another  with  which  it  <N)nnect.s. 
is  less  than  that  of  hauling  the  "  emi)ty  returned  cars" 
hack — rendered  necessary  in  cases  where  the  freight  is 
sent  ea.st — the  preponderance  of  trade  IxMug  largely  in 
that  direction.  It  may  he  said,  the  "  dead  weight" 
hauled  would  be  the  same  whether  the  load  was  con- 
veyed in  cars  belonging  to  this  or  some  other  road  : 
but  such  is  not  the  case,  as  the  cars  belonging  to  this  road 
may  bo  used  hi  transporting  local  freights  on  their  return, 
between  intermediate  stations,  so  as  to  be  partially  loaded 
at  least  ;  whilst  in  the  other  case,  the  cars  must  be 
promptl}-  returned  to  their  owners  for  use. 

This  system  of  interchange  of  cars,  so  fiir  as  short  roarls 
are  concerned,  is  undoubtedly  beneficial :  but  if  applied  in 
connection  with  long  roads,  the  benefits  will  be  found  to 
l)e  derived  at  the  expense  of  the  latter,  as  in  the  settle- 
ments between  the  two,  the  payments  for  **  mileage'"  for 
the  use  of  cars  will  invariably  be  in  favor  of  the  short 
lines.  The  long  roads  by  this  system  are  frequently 
compelled  to  pay  the  hire  of  rolling  stock  of  inferior  con- 
struction (their  own.  perhaps,  in  the  mean  time  standing 
idle),  and  also  to  expend  large  sums  to  keep  such  cars  in 
repairs  ;  as  they  are  not  unfrequently  sent  from  one  road 
to  another  in  such  a  dilapidated  condition  as  to  involve 
the  necessity  of  switching  them  out  of  the  train   before 


50 


APPESDE. 


reaeliin<r  their  destination,  mnking  it  often  necessary  to 
reship  goods  at  points  where  it  is  not  only  inconvenient 
but  expensive  to  do  so.  This  has  been  the  experience  of 
this  road,  and  our  accounts  show  that  it  has  cost  this 
Conipanv  nearly  double  the  amount  per  mile  run.  for  the 
repairs  of  cars  belonging  to  other  lines,  that  has  been  ex- 
pended on  their  own.  Tiiese  objections  have  been  foun<l 
so  serious  in  their  character,  that  it  has  been  deemed  ne- 
cessary to  almost  entirely  discontinue  the  system  of  mU'r- 
change,  although  the  lateral  roads  connecting  with  this 
were  constructed,  of  the  same  width  of  gauge,  with  that 
particular  object  iu  view. 

Whatever  advantages  may  be  claimed  for  the  system,  in 
its  ai»idication  to  .<hort  roads  forming  the  same  line,  or  to 
lateral  roads  connecting  with  main  trunks,  I  have  nt) 
doubt  it  can  be  clearly  shown  that  companies  owning  the 
latter,  have  nothing  to  gain,  but  much  to  lose,  by  such  an 
arran-^ement  :  and  I  contidentlv  believe  that  the  experience 
of  railroad  managers  irenerallv.  will  bear  me  out  in  the 
remark,  that  a  road  five  hundred  miles  in  length,  with  a 
gauge  that  does  not  correspond  with  that  of  any  indepen- 
dent line  with  which  it  connects,  enjoys  in  this  particular, 
an  enviable  position. 

An  accurate  account  of  the  cost  of  loading  and  unload- 
ing has  been  kept  at  the  Dunkirk  station,  from  which  it 
appears  the  expense  is  about  seven  cents  a  ton.  certainly  a 
much  les"^  sum  than  the  cost  of  hauling  the  extra  dead 
weight,  repairs  of  cars,  and  wear  and  tear  of  machiner\', 
involved  by  the  interchange  of  cars. 

I  will  al.<o  allude  to  another  argument  used  in  opposi- 


.VrPENDK. 


51 


tiou  to  the  introduction  of  the  broad  gauge.  \'iz.,   the  sup- 
posed greater  resistance  otTered  by  its  curvature. 

It*  we  analyze  the  resistance  opposed  to  the  passage  of  a 
train  througli  a  curve,  two  species  of  friction,  besides  those 
existing  on  a  straight  track,  will  be  found.  One  is  caused 
bv  the  necessitv  for  the  wheels  on  one  rail  to  slide  throufrh 
a  portion  or  the  whole  of  a  distance  equal  to  the  difterence 
in  the  lenirths  of  the  inner  and  the  outer  rails.  The  other 
is  causetl  bv  the  inipinLrini;  of  the  flanges  of  the  wheels 
against  the  outer  rails,  in  overcoming  the  tangential  ten- 
dency of  the  trains. 

The  ditlerence  in  the  lengths  of  the  inner  t?nd  the  outer 
rails,  for  a  degree  of  curvature,  is.  for  a  track  of  6  ft. 
gauge.  yVVoV.  <-^l  *  f<^»<^»^-  ^iitl  for  a  track  of  4  ft.  8^  in.  gauge, 
Tom Su  ^^  ^  ^•^*^^-  iiii^king  a  ditlerence  between  the  two 
guages  of  J ,;  J4o^  of  a  toot,  or  less  than  ^^^  of  an  inch  in  one 
hundred  feet,  throujrh  which  additional  distance  one  foilf 
the  weigiit  of  the  train  is  supposed  to  slide. 

Xow.  if  we  suppose  locomotives,  or  cars,  or  trains  of 
ecpial  weight,  to  traverse  curves  of  equal  radii,  it  is  quite 
immaterial  as  to  what  width  the  irauire  of  the  track  mav 
he  :  for  the  same  weights  will  in  any  ciy^e  be  impo.<ied  upon 
either  rail,  whether  far  a[)art  or  near  to  each  other  :  and 
each  ton  of  weiirht  will  slide  as  easily  throush  a  distance 
of  one  hundred  feet  in  one  case  as  in  another. 

The  power  that  can  shde  or  overcome  the  friction  of 
one  ton.  or  any  number  of  tons_  on  the  surface  of  the  rails, 
for  one  hundred  teet.  if  continued  to  be  exerted,  will  con- 
tinue to  overcome  the  same  degree  of  friction  for  ^V  of  an 
inch  not  only,  but  for  an  indefinite  distance  ;  therefore  the 


52  APPENDIX. 

pmcer  of  a  locomotice  is  not  dhninisheih  in  this  particular, 
b*/  f?te  width  of  the  tnicl\ 

In  locating  a  railroad,  tlie  engineer  traces  a  line  called 
the  *  centre  line  of  location."  (See  illustration.)  Thi.s 
line  i.s.  also,  usually  made  either  the  ••  centre  line  "of  a 
siu'de  track,  or  the  centre  line  between  two  tracks.  The 
"centre  line*'  would  not  be  varied  by  the  adoption  of 
either  a  wide  or  a  narrow  track. 

It  is  obviou.<  that,  upou  a  curved  track,  with  a  centre 
hue  of  tix'-d  radius,  the  wider  the  ftauire  the  greater  will 
be  the  radius  of  curvature  of  the  outside  rail,  and  con.^- 
quently,  the  nearer  to  a  straight  line  will  a  given  length 
of  that  rail  approach. 

A  chord  line  of  i;iven  len2;th  will  coincide  more  nearlv 
to  an  arc  of  the  larger  ciu've,  and  niuke  a  sun\ller  angle 
with  it.  than  with  a  curve  of  less  radius.  The  wheels  of  a 
ti'u<.-k  occupy  the  position  of  this  chord,  with  reference  to 
the  outside  rail. 

The  an^le.  therefore,  at  which  the  flanfre  of  a  wheel,  on 
entering  and  passing  through  a  curve,  will  impinge  upon 
the  outer  rail,  being  less  on  a  wide  than  on  a  narrow 
track,  it  follows  that  the  momtntary  resistance,  from  this 
cause,  is  least  on  the  wida  track,  though  it  may  be  slightly 
increased  in  duration. 


In  concluding  my  remarks  upou  this  subject,  permit 
me  here  to  state,  that  although  the  gauge  of  this  road  is 
all  thatcoidd  be  desired  for  the  extent  and  character  of  its 
business,  it  does  not  follow  that  its  general  adoption  would 
be   either   wi.<e   or  economical,  as  it  is  with  railroads  as 


p 
B 


0 

X 

P 

5" 

o 

3 

p 
•-* 

X 

o 
ti 

O 

© 


Q 

< 
p 

;: 
•-* 
o 

o 


o 
o 

{3 

Q 
p 

(R 
X 


APPENDIX.  68 

with  all  other  modes  of  transportation,  the  magnitude  of 
the  arrangements  should  be  in  proportion  to  the  amount 
and  nature  of  the  business  required  to  be  done. 

Whilst  the  wisdom  of  this  State,  in  the  furtherance  of 
the  enlargement  of  the  Erie  Canal,  cannot  be  questioned, 
the  extension  of  a  like  policy  to  unimportant  branches 
would  be  deemed  absurd  ;  the  first  having  been  found 
too  small  for  its  business,  whilst  the  latter  are  undoubt- 
edly quite  as  large  as  can  ever  be  required.  The  same 
reasoning  applies  with  equal  force  to  railroads  ;  for  whilst 
upon  some  roads  a  gauge  of  0  ft.  may  be  found  more 
economical  in  the  transaction  of  a  heavy  hnshiess,  a  gauge 
of  4  ft.  8^  in.  may  be  much  more  suitable  for  the  business 
of  others  ;  indeed  it  is  questionable  whether,  for  a  road 
doing  a  very  U(jht  fjusiness,  even  the  latter  may  not  be 
found  too  wide  for  economical  transportation. 

The  question  to  be  decided,  therefore,  in  determining 
the  proper  width  of  gauge  to  be  adopted  on  any  given 
line  of  railway,  is  not  whether  a  gauge  of  6  ft.  possesses 
greater  capacity  than  a  gauge  of  4  ft.  85  in.,  but  ratlier 
what  width  of  gauge  is  the  best  adapted  to  admit  of  such 
a  construction  of  machinery  as  will  most  profitably  over- 
come the  resistances  of  the  line,  and  that  will  meet  the 
nature  and  extent  of  traffic,  present  and  prospective. 


54  ATPENDIX. 


Letter  received  from  H.  Stanley  Goodwin.  Esq.,  Assistant 
General  Superintendent  of  the  LeJtif/h  V<dley  RailrowZ, 
in  relfftion  to  the  ehnraeter  of  power,  loads  hauled,  and 
cars  used,  upon  that  road  : 

Lkiikui  y.\ij-KV  Raimjoai)  Company, 

OlTlCE  OF    TUE  SUPKUINTKNDKNT  AND  EnoINEEK, 

Bethlehem,  Pa.,  J(il<tj  15,  1871. 
8.  Sevmoir,   H>sq., 

N'o.  20   yassau  Street, 
New  York. 

DiiAii  Sir, — Yoiii-  i'avor  of  the  10th  ni.st.  is  duly  received 
and  noted,  askhig  certain  questions  which  I  will  endeavor 
to  answer. 

The  road  engines  most  in  use  by  us  are  of  two  kinds  : 
lirsl.  the  ordinary  10-wheel  engine,  weighing  from  76,400 
Ihs.  to  78.000  lbs.,  with  lire  and  steam,  of  which  from  01,- 
600  to  63,000  lbs.  weight  is  on  the  0  drivers,  and  the  re- 
mainder upon  the  leading  truck. 

Some  of  these  engines  havT  drivers  4  ft.  in  diameter, 
and  cylinders  17  X  24: ;  others,  drivers  4^  ft.,  and  cylinders 

IS  X  '2-- 

The  other  kind  of  engines,  called  ''  Consolidation,''  and 
built  by  ourselves,  and  by  M.  Baird  Si,  Co.  from  our  origi- 
nal design,  weigh  86,000  lbs.  with  fire  and  steam,  of  which 
76,000  lbs.  on  drivers  ;  8  drivers,  4  ft.  diameter  ;  cylin- 
ders 20  X  '^4. 

That  portion  of  our  road  over  which  our  heaviest  traf- 
fic passes  is  between  Mauch  Chunk  and  Easton,  a  distance 
of  46  miles. 


APPENDIX. 


55 


On  this  the  grade  descends  in  f^xvor  of  the  trade,  vary- 
ing from  0  to  20.  ft.  per  mile,  with  many. curves  of  0°  or 
955  ft.  radius. 

The  grade  on  this  portion  of  the  road  is  such  that  an 
engine  can  haul  down  with  tlie  same  ease  the  numher  of 
loaded  coal  cars,  woigliing  an  average  of  8,*^,,  tons,  that 
the  same  engine  can  haul  up  empty,  weighing  an  average 
of  3  j*y-  tons. 

In  summer,  and  in  good  weather,  we  haul  with  one  of 
the  10-wheel  engines  150  cars  down,  weighing  1,320  tons, 
and  the  same  number  up  empty,  weighing  510  tons. 

We  do  not  consider  this  the  ultimate  capacity  of  the 
engines,  but  as  nearly  so  as  it  is  safe,  prudent,  and  econo- 
mical to  go.  We  have  at  times,  by  chance  or  design, 
taken  as  many  as  200  cars  both  up  and  down. 

We  do  not  run  the  "Consolidation"  engines  on  this 
part  of  the  road,  or  if  we  do,  we  do  not  give  them  more 
than  200  cars,  and  seldom  so  many,  althougli  we  have 
taken  with  them  as  many  as  250,  and  could  probably  ex- 
ceed 300  before  reaching  the  engine's  capacity. 

We  have  at  one  place  12  miles  of  grade,  averaging  96 
ft.  per  mile  against  the  trade,  with  curves  of  6".  Up  this 
grade  we  haul  with  10-wheel  engines  22  loaded  cars, 
weighing  8.8x22=194  tons,  and  with  "Consolidations," 
33  loaded  cars,  weighing  8.8X33=290  tons. 

On  a  grade  of  14G  ft.  per  mile  for  2  miles,  we  haul  with 
10-wheel  engines  37  empty  cars  =  122  tons,  and  with 
"  Consolidations  "  55  cars  =  182. tons. 

We  have  also  grades  of  40,  60,  and  132  ft.  per  mile, 
but  perhaps  the  above  instances  will  be  sufficient  for  your 
purpose. 


56  ArrFNDTX. 

Wo  sliaJl  he  .ijla.l  to  j^ivo  you  any  further  information 
you  <losiro  ;  and  if  you  ^-hould  wisli  to  observe  for  yourself 
the"  \V()l•ki!l,^•  of  our  road  and  enguies,  we  shall  be  happy 
to  furnish  you  every  I'aeility. 

Vory  truly  yours, 

II.  Stanley  Goodwin, 
Assist.  Genl.  Superintmdtnt. 


